Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.45 seconds)State Of A.P vs Gourishetty Mahesh & Ors on 15 July, 2010
Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court".
Hamida vs Rashid @ Rasheed & Ors on 27 April, 2007
In another subsequent judgment, in the case of Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice".
Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr vs State Of U. P. & Ors on 27 May, 2008
In again yet another judgment, in the case of Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself."
Popular Muthiah vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 4 July, 2006
While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court, in the case of Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings".
State Of Bihar vs Murad Ali Khan, Farukh Salauddin & ... on 10 October, 1988
Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court, in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, could quash the proceedings, but, there would be justification for interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not".Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above.
Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. vs Rahul And 4 Ors. on 30 October, 2019
This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the Applicants, Ramveer Singh and Smt. Asha Singh, with a prayer for setting aside entire proceeding of Criminal Case No.63215/2013, State vs. Rahul and others, arising out of Case Crime No.766 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 304-B, 323 and 328 of IPC, read with Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of Police Station-Sikandara, District Agra, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.