Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)Vijay Dhanuka Etc vs Najima Mamtaj Etc on 27 March, 2014
In Birla Corporation Ltd. (Supra), the Supreme Court while relying
on the decisions in Vijya Dhanuka (Supra); Abhijit Pawar (Supra) and
National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz and Anr. reported as
(2013) 2 SCC 488 reiterated that holding of enquiry under Section 202
Cr.P.C. is mandatory.
Mehmood Ul Rehman vs Khazir Mohammad Tunda . on 31 March, 2015
16. The Supreme Court in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir
Mohammad Tunda & Ors. reported as (2015) 12 SCC 420, held that
cognizance of an offence on a complaint is taken for the purpose of
issuing process to an accused. In this process, judicial notice of certain
facts which constitute an offence is taken and as such, there has to be an
application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when
considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted
thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear
before the criminal court. It was emphasized that:
National Bank Of Oman vs Barakara Abdul Aziz & Anr on 3 December, 2012
In Birla Corporation Ltd. (Supra), the Supreme Court while relying
on the decisions in Vijya Dhanuka (Supra); Abhijit Pawar (Supra) and
National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz and Anr. reported as
(2013) 2 SCC 488 reiterated that holding of enquiry under Section 202
Cr.P.C. is mandatory.
M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors on 4 November, 1997
19. As enunciated in the decisions referred above, the sole object of
bringing the amendment in Sub-Section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C was to
save the accused living at far-off places from unnecessary harassment in
false and fictitious complaints. In these circumstances, the issue that has
arisen in the present case needs to be addressed keeping in view the
object and purpose of the amendment.