Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.35 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 147 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 362 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Moti Lal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 September, 1993
In Moti Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR
1994 SC 1544) the Supreme Court held so in paragraph
2:
C. P. Damodaran Nayar And P. S. Menon vs State Of Kerala And Others on 20 December, 1973
In Damodaran v. State (1992 (2) KLT 165) and
in Tanveer Aquil v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1990
Suppl. SCC 63) we find observations which suggest that
a post revision composition cannot be readily accepted.
Mostt. Simrikhia vs Smt. Dolley Mukherjee @ Smt. ... on 2 March, 1990
- that the parties settled the dispute and the
complainant compounded the offence - was not there at
all. It is a subsequent change in circumstance. The
decision in Mostt. Simrikhia (supra) squarely applies.
That was a case where an earlier application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, but still the Supreme
Court held that a change in circumstances is sufficient to
http://www.judis.nic.in
12
justify the invocation of the powers afresh under Section
482 Cr.P.C. notwithstanding the bar under Section 362
Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. have not been sought to be invoked earlier.
Only the revisional powers were exercised. That is all
the more the reason why under the changed
circumstances the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. In the light of
the dictum in Mostt. Simrikhia earlier decisions rendered
and subsequent decisions, which do not refer to the said
decision specifically and in which the opinion is
expressed that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
cannot be invoked after disposal of the revision in view
of the bar under Section 362, cannot be held to lay
down the law correctly.
K.Subramanian vs R.Rajathi Tr.Poa on 5 November, 2009
8.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
K.Subramanian vs. R.Rajathi Represented by P.O.A.P.
Kaliappan reported in (2010) 15 SCC 352 held as follows:-