Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.33 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March, 1977
24. It is relevant to refer to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of State of Karnataka v/s L. Muniswamy and
Others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 wherein the High
Court is entitled to quash the proceeding if it comes to
the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that
ends of justice requires that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. In exercise of this wholesome power, the High
Court is entitled to quash the proceedings if it comes to
conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue
would be an abuse of process of the Court or that the
ends of justice required that the proceeding ought to be
quashed. The saving of the High Court inhering powers,
both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve
a salutary public purpose which is that a Court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into
a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal
case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution the
24
very nature of material on which the structure of the
prosecution rests and the like would justify the High
Court in quashing the proceedings in the interest of
justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of
mere law though justice has got to be administered
according to laws made by the legislature. The
compelling necessity for making these observations is
that without a proper realization of the object and
purpose of the provision which seeks to save the
inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between
the stay and its subjects it would be impossible to
appreciate the width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
M C Chaithra vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2008
In the case of M.C.Chaithra and Others v/s
State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2008 Karnataka
page 2710 it is held that meticulous analysis of the
material of the prosecution is not permissible at the
stage of framing charge, even a cursory reading of the
statement and averments in the complaint would go to
establish that the grounds made out by the prosecution
are not sufficient to hold that the charge should be
framed against the accused for the offences punishable
9
under section 306 of IPC for abetment of suicide as
defined under section 107 of IPC.
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of W.B vs Orilal Jaiswal on 23 September, 1993
(ii) AIR 2003(3) SC 650 In the case of Sanju
@ Sanjay Singh Sengar v/s State of
Madhya Pradesh
(III) AIR 2007 SC 2045 in the case of State of
West Bengal v/s Orilal Jaiswal.