Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (4.10 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
P. Bagavathy, G. Madhan, Merlin ... vs The Dental Council Of India, New Delhi, ... on 2 July, 2002
In
K.R. Ramkumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police,
Kumbakonam 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 287 it has been held
that when alternative remedy is available to the petitioner
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 the remedy under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 cannot be invoked. The inherent
power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 is
different to that of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Arun Shankar Shukla vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 23 July, 1999
Further in the case of Arun
Shankar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1999 (3) RCR
(Criminal) 630 and Hari Singh v. Harbhajan Singh, 2000 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 650 (SC) it has also been held by the
Supreme Court that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973
cannot be exercised in the matter covered by specific
provisions of the Code.
Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 December, 2007
In view of the judgment Sakiri Vasu
(supra) the prayer of the petitioner under Section 482
Cr.P.C., 1973 for seeking direction to respondent No.2
register an FIR against the private respondents cannot be
entertained and accepted. There is a specific provision under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 whereby the Magistrate
concerned has been empowered to issue such like directions.
Section 3 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 156 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr on 7 July, 2003
In Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and
another 2003 (6) SCC 195 (vide para 13), it has been
observed by this Court that a Magistrate cannot interfere
with the investigation by the police. However, in our
opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a
proper investigation is being done by the police. If the
Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3)
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 15-03-2020 03:12:50 :::
CRM-M-7894-2020 -4-
Cr.P.C. is satisfied that proper investigation has not been
done, or is not being done by the officer-in-charge of the
concerned police station, he can certainly direct the officer
in charge of the police station to make a proper
investigation and can further monitor the same (though he
should not himself investigate)."
Neha Chaudhary vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 12 August, 2015
In Neha Chaudhary v. State of Haryana, (Punjab And
Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 902825 Hon'ble Single Bench of this
Court observed as under:-
1