Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.24 seconds)Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
"5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High
Court when approached for quashing of a criminal
proceeding will not appreciate the defence of the
accused; neither would it consider the veracity of
the document(s) on which the accused relies.
However an exception has been carved out by this
Court in [Yin Cheng Hsiung Vs. Essem Chemical
Industries, 2011 (15) SCC 207; State of Haryana
& Ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp.
Additional District And Sessions ... vs Registrar General, High Court Of Madhya ... on 18 December, 2014
13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 would also refer to the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Additional
District and Sessions Judge 'X' Vs. Registrar General, High
Court of Madhya Pradesh & others 10, wherein it has been held
as under:-
Pankaj D. Suthar vs State Of Gujarat on 26 July, 1991
79.1. Proceedings in the present case are clear
abuse of process of court and are quashed.
79.2. There is no absolute bar against grant of
anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if
no prima facie case is made out or where on
judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima
facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and
approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D.
Suthar Vs. State of Gujarat [(1992) 1 Guj LR 405]
and N.T. Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [(1997) 2 Guj
LR 405] and clarify the judgments of this Court in
State of M.P. Vs. Ram Kishna Balothia [(1995) 3
SCC 221]
79.3. In view of acknowledged abuse of law of
arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act, arrest of a
public servant can only be after approval of the
appointing authority and of a non-public servant
after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted
in appropriate cases if considered necessary for
reasons recorded. Such reasons must be
scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further
detention.
State Of M.P. & Anr vs Ram Krishna Balothia & Anr on 6 February, 1995
79.1. Proceedings in the present case are clear
abuse of process of court and are quashed.
79.2. There is no absolute bar against grant of
anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if
no prima facie case is made out or where on
judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima
facie mala fide. We approve the view taken and
approach of the Gujarat High Court in Pankaj D.
Suthar Vs. State of Gujarat [(1992) 1 Guj LR 405]
and N.T. Desai Vs. State of Gujarat [(1997) 2 Guj
LR 405] and clarify the judgments of this Court in
State of M.P. Vs. Ram Kishna Balothia [(1995) 3
SCC 221]
79.3. In view of acknowledged abuse of law of
arrest in cases under the Atrocities Act, arrest of a
public servant can only be after approval of the
appointing authority and of a non-public servant
after approval by the S.S.P. which may be granted
in appropriate cases if considered necessary for
reasons recorded. Such reasons must be
scrutinized by the Magistrate for permitting further
detention.
Union Of India vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 October, 2019
22. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. State of
Maharashtra & others12, has held as under:-
Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr on 12 October, 1995
26. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 would submit that the
offence under Section 354 (A) of IPC is made out against the
petitioner as it is sexually coloured remarks falling within ambit of
sexual harassment, which is punishable under Section 354 (A)
of the IPC. He would refer to paragraph 14, 17 & 23 of the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rupan
Deol Bajaj Vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill13 has held as under:-
Md.Akram Siddiqui vs The State Of Bihar on 3 October, 2018
27. He would also refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Mohd. Akram Siddiqui, Vs. State of Bihar14,
wherein it has been held as under:-