Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)
Manoj Prabhakar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 July, 2000 cites

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

6. It is well-settled that power of quashing first information report or criminal proceeding at its inception should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases, while examining the question, it is not Justifiable for the Court to embark upon an enquiry, as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report and extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not permit it to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. It is not permissible for this Court to examine those allegations meticulously. While examining the question whether the case falls within the category of 'rarest of rare' cases, the Court first has to go into the grip of the matter, whether the allegations constitute the offence. At this stage, it is not for the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case. In support of this view, we may refer to a few decisions of the Apex Court. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : Mustaq Ahmad v. Mohd. Habiburrahman, JT 1996 (1) SC 656 : Roopan Deal Bajaj and another v. Kunwar Pal Singh Gill, JT 1995 (7) SC 299 and State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan and others. JT 1999 (1) SC 486.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr on 12 October, 1995

6. It is well-settled that power of quashing first information report or criminal proceeding at its inception should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases, while examining the question, it is not Justifiable for the Court to embark upon an enquiry, as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report and extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not permit it to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. It is not permissible for this Court to examine those allegations meticulously. While examining the question whether the case falls within the category of 'rarest of rare' cases, the Court first has to go into the grip of the matter, whether the allegations constitute the offence. At this stage, it is not for the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case. In support of this view, we may refer to a few decisions of the Apex Court. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : Mustaq Ahmad v. Mohd. Habiburrahman, JT 1996 (1) SC 656 : Roopan Deal Bajaj and another v. Kunwar Pal Singh Gill, JT 1995 (7) SC 299 and State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan and others. JT 1999 (1) SC 486.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 877 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

State Of Kerala & Ors vs O.C.Kuttan & Ors on 17 February, 1999

6. It is well-settled that power of quashing first information report or criminal proceeding at its inception should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of rare cases, while examining the question, it is not Justifiable for the Court to embark upon an enquiry, as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report and extraordinary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not permit it to act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. It is not permissible for this Court to examine those allegations meticulously. While examining the question whether the case falls within the category of 'rarest of rare' cases, the Court first has to go into the grip of the matter, whether the allegations constitute the offence. At this stage, it is not for the Court to weigh the pros and cons of the prosecution case. In support of this view, we may refer to a few decisions of the Apex Court. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : Mustaq Ahmad v. Mohd. Habiburrahman, JT 1996 (1) SC 656 : Roopan Deal Bajaj and another v. Kunwar Pal Singh Gill, JT 1995 (7) SC 299 and State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan and others. JT 1999 (1) SC 486.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 203 - M B Shah - Full Document

Satpal And Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 24 April, 2000

11. Section 41(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes a provision as to in what circumstances, a police officer may arrest an accused without the order of Magistrate or without a warrant. Clause (a) of this sub-section provides that any person who has been concerned in any cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned, may be arrested by police without a warrant. Section 157, Cr. P.C. lays down the procedure for investigation and empowers the Investigating Officer to take measures for the arrest of the offender. The Full Bench in the case of Satpal and others (supra), observed :
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - M C Jain - Full Document
1