Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.33 seconds)M/S Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.& ... vs Md Sharaful Haque & Anr on 1 November, 2004
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2)
of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the
Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the
Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the
Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it
may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for
administration of which alone, the courts exist.
[Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary;
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G. Sagar
Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi
Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of
U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S.
Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma
(P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v.
State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P.;
Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu;
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar; State of Bihar
v. P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; M.
Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; Savita v. State of Rajasthan
and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat.]
27.16.
Shakson Belthissor vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2)
of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the
Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the
Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the
Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it
may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for
administration of which alone, the courts exist.
[Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary;
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G. Sagar
Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi
Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of
U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S.
Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma
(P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v.
State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P.;
Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu;
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar; State of Bihar
v. P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; M.
Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; Savita v. State of Rajasthan
and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat.]
27.16.
M/S. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd vs M/S. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors. ... on 25 February, 2000
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2)
of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the
Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the
Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the
Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it
may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for
administration of which alone, the courts exist.
[Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary;
Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill; G. Sagar
Suri v. State of U.P.; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P.; Pepsi
Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate; State of
U.P. v. O.P. Sharma; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S.
Bangarappa; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.
Mohd. Sharaful Haque; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma
(P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd.; Shakson Belthissor v.
State of Kerala; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P.;
Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu;
Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar; State of Bihar
v. P.P. Sharma; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar; M.
Krishnan v. Vijay Singh; Savita v. State of Rajasthan
and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat.]
27.16.
State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs P.P. Sharma, Ias And Anr on 2 April, 1991
28. At this stage, we may also notice that the principle
stated by this Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia was
reconsidered and explained in two subsequent judgments
of this Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and M.N.
Damani v. S.K. Sinha. In the subsequent judgment, the
Court held that, that judgment did not declare a law of
universal application and what was the principle relating to
disputes involving cases of a predominantly civil nature
with or without criminal intent.
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.