Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.31 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Farook Mohammed Kasim Mapkar & Ors on 30 July, 2010
21. With the aid of above, this Court now proceeds to examine the veracity of impugned judgement and order dated 27.5.2022, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C. 1), Bijnor, in Sessions Trial No. 1078 of 2021 (State Vs. Mohammad Kasim), under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC in the alternate under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Noorpur, District Bijnor, whereby the application dated 16.05.2023 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution (first informant) has been rejected.
Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs The State Of Punjab on 5 December, 2022
35. The reference made by a Two Judges Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2019) 6 SCC 638, was answered by another Five Judges Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289. The Court held that "The power under Section 319CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.". Thereafter, the Court also laid down the guidelines to be followed while exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
S. Mohammed Ispahani vs Yogendra Chandak on 4 October, 2017
41. Even though, the law with regard to the summoning of a prospective accused was crystallized by the Five Judges Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh (Supra) and formulated the same in paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 6.5, 7, 11, 55, 56, 57, 85, 92, 105, 106, 116, 117.1 to 117.6 yet the parameters with regard to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were subsequently, made more stringent but in favour of accused by the subsequent Benches of the Supreme Court in Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajsthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 and S Mohammad Ishpahani Vs. Yogendra Chandak (2017) 16 SCC 22.