Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Reserved On: 09.01.2026 vs Of on 23 February, 2026 cites

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

12. The aforesaid law laid down in Adalat Prasad case [Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927] has been followed and reiterated by this Court in its subsequent decisions in Bholu Ram case [Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab, (2008) 9 SCC 140 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 710], Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 13 SCC 324: 2005 SCC (Cri) 242], N.K. Sharma v. Abhimanyu [(2005) 13 SCC 213 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 135] and Everest Advertising (P) Ltd. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2007) 5 SCC 54 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 444].
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 900 - Full Document

N.K. Sharma vs Abhimanyu on 7 October, 2005

12. The aforesaid law laid down in Adalat Prasad case [Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927] has been followed and reiterated by this Court in its subsequent decisions in Bholu Ram case [Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab, (2008) 9 SCC 140 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 710], Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 13 SCC 324: 2005 SCC (Cri) 242], N.K. Sharma v. Abhimanyu [(2005) 13 SCC 213 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 135] and Everest Advertising (P) Ltd. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2007) 5 SCC 54 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 444].
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 34 - S B Sinha - Full Document

K.M. Mathew vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 19 November, 1991

Mathew v. State of Kerala [(1992) 1 SCC 217: 1992 SCC (Cri) 88] stated the law thus: (SCC p. 343, paras 14 & 16) "14. But after taking cognisance of the complaint and examining the complainant and the witnesses, if he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint, he can issue process by way of summons under Section 204 of the Code. Therefore, of what is necessary or a condition precedent for issuing a process under Section 204 is the satisfaction of the Magistrate, either by examination of the complainant and the witnesses or by the inquiry contemplated rt under Section 202, that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint, hence issue the process under Section 204 of the Code. In none of these stages the Code has provided for hearing the summoned accused, for obvious reasons, because this is only a preliminary stage, and the stage of hearing of the accused would only arise at a subsequent stage provided for in the latter provision in the Code.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 328 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Bholu Ram vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 29 August, 2008

12. The aforesaid law laid down in Adalat Prasad case [Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, (2004) 7 SCC 338: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1927] has been followed and reiterated by this Court in its subsequent decisions in Bholu Ram case [Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab, (2008) 9 SCC 140 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 710], Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra [(2004) 13 SCC 324: 2005 SCC (Cri) 242], N.K. Sharma v. Abhimanyu [(2005) 13 SCC 213 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 135] and Everest Advertising (P) Ltd. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2007) 5 SCC 54 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 444].
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 86 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1