Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Asmathunnisa vs State Of A.P & Anr on 29 March, 2011
Apex Court in Asmathunnisa Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh (supra) held that the inherent powers should
be invoked when continuing of proceeding would result in abuse of
process of Court.
Suneet Gupta vs Anil Triloknath Sharma & Ors on 28 April, 2008
Apex Court in
Suneet Gupta vs. Anil Triloknath Sharma & Ors. (supra)
considered the delay of two years as inordinate delay when the
dispute was of a civil nature.
Rajiv Thapar & Ors vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013
28. The delay in this case is seventeen years which is also
inordinate delay, coupled with the delay, there are two civil suits
filed by the sons of the complainant wherein no interim injunction
(Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 03:11:46 AM)
(11 of 12) [CRLW-157/2015]
was granted in favour of the complainant. In addition to the delay,
petitioners have been exercising their sole rights over the property
by receiving rent for 15 years. They got the registered Pattas
issued by the Jaipur Development Authority way back in the year
2001. The Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal
Kapoor (supra) held that the Courts can quash the proceedings
on the basis of defence material, if satisfied that the proceedings
would result in abuse of process of court and would not serve the
ends of justice.
Anand Kumar Jain And Anr vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp on 30 May, 2012
Rajasthan High Court in Anand
Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan 2006 (3) RCC 1652 considered
the delay of 13 years as inordinate and FIR was quashed.
Mohan Lal Alias Hanuman Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 January, 1987
Rajasthan High Court in Mohan Lal Singhal Vs.
The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) held that where there is
dispute regarding property and the dispute appears to be of a civil
nature, proceedings should not be continued in the criminal side.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
17. Reliance is also placed on State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
(AIR 1992 SC 604) wherein the Apex Court has set out the
categories of cases in which the inherent powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised.
Pratibha vs Rameshwari Devi & Ors on 17 September, 2007
22. Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Pratibha
vs. Rameshwari Devi & Ors. JT 2007 (11) 122 wherein the
Apex Court held that while exercising the extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court cannot go
beyond the allegations made in the FIR or rely upon extraneous
consideration. For the purpose of finding out the commission of a
cognizable offence the High Court is only required to look into the
allegations made in the complaint or the FIR.
M.L. Bhatt vs M.K. Pandita And Ors. on 13 February, 2002
23. Reliance is also placed on M.L.Bhatt vs. M.K.Pandita &
Ors. JT 2002 (3) SC 89 wherein the Apex Court held that the
High Court is entitled to only examine the FIR and by no means
the Court would be justified in quashing FIR by appreciating and
shifting the materials collected during the investigation.
B. Suresh Yadav vs Sharifa Bee & Anr on 12 October, 2007
12. Reliance is also placed on B.Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee
& Anr. (AIR 2008 SC 210) wherein the Apex Court held that
though liability of a person can be both civil and criminal at the
same time, inconsistent stand taken by complainant assumes
significance and complaint may be quashed.
1