Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.28 seconds)
Reserved On:28.05.2025 vs Surat Singh Negi on 24 June, 2025 cites

Fiona Shrikhande vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 22 August, 2013

"25. Now, reverting back to Section 506, which is offence of criminal intimidation, the principles laid down by Fiona Shrikhande [Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 28 2025:HHC:19450 14 SCC 44 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 715] has also to be applied when question of finding out as to whether the ingredients of offence are made or not. Here, the only allegation is that the appellant abused the complainant. For proving an offence under Section 506 IPC, what are the ingredients which have to be proved by the prosecution? Ratanlal & Dhirajlal on Law of Crimes, 27th Edn. with regard to proof of offence states the following:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 134 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

"9. We are unable to appreciate the reasoning that the provision incorporated in the agreement for referring the disputes to arbitration is an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the disputed act is an offence. Arbitration is a remedy for affording relief to the party affected by a breach of the agreement, but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of any act which amounted to an offence, albeit the same act may be connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement. Hence, those are not good reasons for the High Court to axe down 15 2025:HHC:19450 the complaint at the threshold itself. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases as indicated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 3 Next