Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.47 seconds)

Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 November, 2018

In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cogni- zance would automatically stands vitiated."
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 1060 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Bharti vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 27 February, 2014

In Bharti v. State of Haryana, 2014(4) SCC 14, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [6]. We are mindful of the fact that Section 354 of the IPC is, as of today, non-compoundable. But, as noticed by us, it was compound- able when the instant offence was committed with the permission of the court. Even then, we would have hesitated to permit com- pounding of the offence. But, facts of this case are very peculiar. Re- spondent No.2 and her husband have, even today, maintained their stand taken in the trial court that they have entered into a compro- mise with the appellant. As we have already noted, respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit to that effect in this Court. Compromise is, therefore, not an afterthought. Pertinently, the incident in question 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2022 05:26:45 ::: CRM-M No. 9710 of 2022 --3--
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 25 - Full Document
1   2 Next