Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977
However, Madhu Limaye's case (supra)
has been quoted with approval, wherein the principle of harmonious
construction of statutes has been invoked to hold that an aggrieved party
would not be left remediless where an interlocutory order causes great
injustice to it. In such situations, the High Court would be entitled to
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2018 12:39:30 :::
CRM-M-33435-2016 5
invoke its inherent jurisdiction. However, the exercise of the inherent
power must be done sparingly and in a circumspect manner.
V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I on 7 December, 1979
In the case of Krishnan (supra), the Supreme Court was
examining the inter-play between Section 397 Cr.P.C and Section 482
Cr.P.C. Madhu Limaye's case (supra) was considered alongwith 'V.C.
Shukla Vs. State through CBI, 1980(2) SCR 380' (majority view of
Four Judges' Bench) and it was held as under:-
M/S Laxmi Dyechem vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 27 November, 2012
13. The case of M/s Laxmi Dyechem (supra) is not attracted in
the facts of this case because the said judgment gives a right to the drawer
of a cheque to rebut the presumption under Section 138 of the Act in case
an instruction has been issued to 'stop payment' despite sufficiency of
funds.
Rajathi vs C. Ganesan on 22 July, 1999
Even in the case of Rajathi (supra) relied
upon by learned counsel for the respondent, the case of Krishnan (supra)
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 29-12-2018 12:39:30 :::
CRM-M-33435-2016 6
has been referred to but on merits, it has been held that the exercise of
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was unwarranted.