Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.44 seconds)Section 36 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 December, 2007
In case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of UP & Ors., it has been
observed in para 11 and 26 as under:
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 19 March, 2015
29. From the perusal of the complaint it can be seen that, the
complainant/respondent No. 2 himself has made averments with
regard to the filing of the Original Suit. In any case, when the
complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate
ought not to have entertained the application under Section 156
(3) of the CrPC. The High Court has also failed to take into
consideration the legal position as has been enunciated by this
court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (supra),
and has dismissed the petitions by merely observing that serious
allegations are made in the complaint".[Emphasis supplied]
Rcc Infraventures Ltd And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 31 May, 2022
17. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in RCC
Infraventures Ltd and Others vs State Of Haryana and
Another, CRM-M-12913-2022 (O&M) decided on 31 May, 2022
has also held that the requirement of prior compliance of Section
154 (3) CrPC is mandatory.
State Of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors.Etc on 7 December, 2011
In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770, once primary action is declared
void, all consequential actions would fall through for the reasons
that illegality strikes at the root. Clearly, therefore, once order of
the Ld. Magistrate is set aside, the consequential FIR will not
exist. The present revision is clearly maintainable.