Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.51 seconds)Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 155 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
In Bhajan Lal (supra), the Supreme Court had referred to its
earlier decisions - including most notably the decision in R.P. Kapur
v. State of Punjab: AIR 1960 SC 866 - and had set out the following
circumstances or cases, in which an FIR or a complaint could be
quashed:
Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Bajaj vs State Nct Of Delhi And Others on 12 March, 2000
In the aforesaid
context, in Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi): (1999) 3 SCC 259
the Supreme Court referred to the earlier decision in the case of
Bhajan Lal (supra) and after noting that the Court had struck a note of
caution that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be used
very sparingly, had held as under:-
M. S. Sheriff vs The State Of Madras And Others on 18 March, 1954
Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999
29. Mr Hariharan had in the passing also referred to the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat
Goldmines Ltd. and Anr.: AIR 1999 SC 1416 and contended that in
that case, the Court had not permitted parallel proceedings and had
held that the departmental proceedings ought to be stayed in cases,
where the same was premised on the allegations that were subject
matter of the criminal proceedings initiated against the allegedly
delinquent employee. This contention is insubstantial. The Supreme
Court had not laid down any proposition of law to the effect that
departmental proceedings were required to be stayed, if criminal
proceedings regarding the same subject matter, were pending. On the
contrary, the Supreme Court had referred to various earlier decisions
and concluded that departmental proceedings and proceedings in a
criminal case could proceed simultaneously and there was no bar in
doing so. However, the Court had also stated that in certain cases,
where department proceedings and criminal cases are based on
identical and similar sets of facts and the criminal case against the
delinquent employee is of a grave nature, which involves complicated
questions of law and fact, it may be desirable to stay the departmental
proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. This Court is of
the view that the said decision would have no relevance in the facts
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:Dushyant
Rawal
Location: W.P.(CRL.) 1230/2020 Page 19 of 31
Signing Date:03.11.20
and circumstances of this case.