Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.36 seconds)Section 144 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
T.T.Antony vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 12 July, 2001
24. We have already noticed that in T.T. Antony case this Court
did not consider the legal right of an aggrieved person to file
counterclaim, on the contrary from the observations found in the
said judgment it clearly indicates that filing a counter-
complaint is permissible.
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Kari Choudhary vs Most. Sita Devi And Ors. on 11 December, 2001
18. This Court in Kari Choudhary v. Sita Devi discussing this
aspect of law held:
Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 13 January, 2006
20. Somewhat similar view was taken by a Bench of this Court in the case
of Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 1 SCC 732],
wherein the Court held that the subsequent FIRs cannot be prohibited on the
ground that some other FIR has been filed against the petitioner in respect
of other allegations filed against the petitioner.
Vikram & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2007
In the case of Vikram v. State of
Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC 332, the Court held that it was not impermissible
in law to treat the subsequent information report as the First Information
Report and act thereupon.
Tapinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 May, 1970
In the case of Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab
[(1970) 2 SCC 113] also, this Court examined the question as to whether
cryptic, anonymous and oral messages, which do not clearly specify the
cognizable offence, can be treated as FIR, and answered the question in the
negative.