Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.25 seconds)State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
"As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage.
Baijnath Jha vs Sita Ram & Anr on 12 June, 2008
In the case of Baijnath Jha (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the extent of inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 of the Code. In this case the matter related to quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code while in the present case no criminal proceeding is pending in any court; rather the matter relates to quashing of an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate during the investigation on the report submitted by the Investigating Officer.
Ram Lal Yadav And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 1 February, 1989
11. Sri Dwivedi further submits that the power of the Investigating Officer to arrest an accused during the course of investigation is part of the investigation. The Investigating Officer tried his level best to arrest the accused but the accused were avoiding their arrest, therefore, the Investigating Officer submitted a report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow for issuance of non bailable warrant against them. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate being satisfied with the report of the Investigating Officer ordered for issuance of non bailable warrant against the accused vide impugned order dated 09.11.2010. Since the case is under investigation, therefore, no investigation proceeding including the issuance of non bailable warrant by the Magistrate can be challenged by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code. The petition is, therefore, not maintainable on this ground too. Sri Dwivedi in support of his argument has placed reliance on the law laid down by a Full Bench of this Court i.e. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Ram Lal Yadava Vs. State of U.P. And Others; 1989 (26) ACC 181 (H.C., F.B.).
Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary And Ors. on 28 August, 1992
(See: Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary (1992 (4) SCC 305), and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with."