Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.35 seconds)

Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004

29. There is a separate procedure prescribed for a case instituted on a police report and the case instituted otherwise than on a police report, which is commonly known as complaint case. When a complaint is presented before the Magistrate the procedure laid down in Section 200 onwards of the Code is required to be followed. At that stage, there is no question of participating in the proceedings by the accused, till the summons is issued. The Magistrate has to examine the complainant and his witnesses on oath and the substance of such examination is required to be reduced into writing, which has to be signed by the complainant and the witnesses as also by the Magistrate. Before taking cognizance, if the Magistrate thinks fit, he may postpone the issue of process against the accused and direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 900 - Full Document

Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004

32. Looking to the fact that the offence in the instant case is punishable for more than two years or the case is to be tried by a court of sessions, the procedure indicated in the relevant chapter is required to be followed. Keeping these aspects in mind, it is worth pointing out here as to what the Apex Court has held in the case of Subramanium Sethuraman (supra) that "The case involving a summons case is covered by Chapter XX of the Code which does not contemplate a stage of discharge like Section 239 which provides for a discharge in a warrant case". It is in view of this the Apex Court opined that the High Court was correct in coming to the conclusion that once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the Code the procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 266 - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Murad Ali Khan, Farukh Salauddin & ... on 10 October, 1988

23. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and Others (1988) 4 SCC 655) has pointed out that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and has held that in exercising that jurisdiction the High Court should not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 636 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1   2 Next