Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 57 (2.54 seconds)Rajbohar Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2021
The necessary facts for disposal of the present case are that
the petitioner is a government servant and presently working as
Head Constable Police Sation Katara Hilss, Bagmugalia
Extension, Bhopal. The respondent no.3/complainant is related to
the petitioner and the land of the petitioner as well as respondent
no.3 is adjacent to each other. Since some dispute arose related to
demarcation and construction of boundary on the petitioner's land,
the respondent no.3 in order to pressurize the petitioner initiated
the proceedings under section 155 and informed the concerned
authority of commission of a non-cognizable offence therefore, the
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No. 55744/2021
(Rajbohar Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P. and others)
(2)
complaint filed by the respondent no.3 was registered at serial
no.46/2021.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
12. The counsel appearing for the appellant also drew
our attention to the same decision which is relied upon in
the impugned judgment by the High Court i.e. State
of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. In the said decision, this
Court held that it may not be possible to lay down any
specific guidelines or watertight compartment as to
when the power under Section 482 CrPC could be or is
to be exercised. This Court, however, gave an exhaustive
list of various kinds of cases wherein such power could
be exercised. In para 103 of the said judgment, this
Court, however, hastened to add that as a note of caution
it must be stated that the power of quashing a criminal
proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases for
the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an
inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the first information report
or in the complaint and that the extraordinary or the
inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction
on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs P.P. Sharma, Ias And Anr on 2 April, 1991
21. The said judgment in Madhavrao case was
reconsidered and explained by this Court in State of
Bihar
v. P.P. Sharma which reads as under: (SCC p. 271, para
M/S Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.& ... vs Md Sharaful Haque & Anr on 1 November, 2004
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. Etc vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. ... on 9 February, 1988
70) "70. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre also does not help the respondents.
In that case the allegations constituted civil wrong as the
trustees created tenancy of trust property to favour
the
third party. A private complaint was laid for the offence
under Section 467 read with Section 34 and Section 120-B
IPC which the High Court refused to quash under
Section 482. This Court allowed the appeal and quashed
the proceedings on the ground that even on its own
contentions in the complaint, it would be a case of breach
of trust or a civil wrong but no ingredients of criminal
offence were made out. On those facts and also due to the
relation of the settler, the mother, the appellant and his
wife, as the son and daughter-in-law, this Court interfered
and allowed the appeal. ... Therefore, the ratio therein is
of no assistance to the facts in this case. It cannot be
considered that this Court laid down as a proposition
of law that in every case the court would examine at the
preliminary stage whether there would be ultimate
chances of conviction on the basis of allegation and
exercise of the power under Section 482 or Article
226 to quash the
proceedings or the charge-sheet."