Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)

Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014

In order to answer the question, some of the principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh case (2014) 3 SCC 92 may be recapitulated: ... However, since it is a discretionary power given to the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge-sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity."
Supreme Court of India Cites 114 - Cited by 1591 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

The State Of Jammu And Kashmir vs Tanveer Ahmad Khan on 19 August, 2019

2. This criminal revision has been preferred against order dated 27.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (P.C. Act) Court No.2, Gorakhpur, in Session Trial No. 161 of 2010 (State vs. Tanveer Ahmad), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, police station Bansgaon, district Gorakhpur, whereby an application filed by the revisionist/informant under Section 319 CrPC for summoning of accused Zubaida as accused has been rejected.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 Next