Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.27 seconds)

Amarsang Nathaji As Himself And As Karta ... vs Hardik Harshadbhai Patel And Ors on 23 November, 2016

(c) In Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, (2017) 1 SCC 113, Supreme Court holds, "5. There are two pre conditions for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. - (i) materials produced before the court must make out a prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence referred to in clause (b)(i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. and (ii) it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 55 - Full Document

K.T.M.S. Mohd. And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 April, 1992

sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred in Section 340(1) of the Cr.P.C., having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. and Another v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 178). The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 194 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Pritish vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 21 November, 2001

7. In the process of formation of opinion by the court that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into, the requirement should only be to have a prima facie satisfaction of the offence which appears to have been committed. It is open to the court to hold a preliminary inquiry though it is not mandatory. In case, the court is otherwise in a position to form such an opinion, that it appears to the court that an offence as referred to under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. has been committed, the court may dispense with the preliminary inquiry. Even after forming an opinion as to the offence which appears to have been committed also, it is not mandatory that a complaint should be filed as a matter of course. (See Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2002) 1 SCC 253).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 125 - Full Document
1   2 Next