Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 February, 2019 cites

Sonu Gupta vs Deepak Gupta & Ors on 11 February, 2015

5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are 1 Sonu Gupta v. Deepak Gupta and Ors. 2015 (3) SCC 424. 3 disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 320 - S K Singh - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs M. Devendrappa & Anr on 16 January, 2002

8. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 and 8 to 11 submitted that a proper evaluation of the material on record would disclose that the complaint is frivolous. He submitted that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature and the ingredients of the offences that are alleged against the Respondent are not made out. By making the above statement, Mr. Basant commended to this 2 State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr. 2002 (3) SCC 89 3 Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, 2006 (6) SCC 736 4 Court that there is no warrant for interference with the judgment of the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 494 - A Pasayat - Full Document

M/S Indian Oil Corporation vs M/S Nepc India Ltd., & Ors on 20 July, 2006

8. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 and 8 to 11 submitted that a proper evaluation of the material on record would disclose that the complaint is frivolous. He submitted that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature and the ingredients of the offences that are alleged against the Respondent are not made out. By making the above statement, Mr. Basant commended to this 2 State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Anr. 2002 (3) SCC 89 3 Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, 2006 (6) SCC 736 4 Court that there is no warrant for interference with the judgment of the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 1578 - Full Document
1