Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.25 seconds)
Deena Nath Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 11 May, 2026 cites

Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013

32. ? The scope and ambit of a preliminary inquiry being necessary before lodging an FIR would depend upon the facts of each case. There is no set format or manner in which a preliminary inquiry is to be conducted. The objective of the same is only to ensure that a criminal investigation process is not initiated on a frivolous and untenable complaint. That is the test laid down inLalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 18813 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

The State Of Telangana vs Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy on 6 December, 2019

26. Hence, all these decisions do not mandate that a preliminary enquiry must be conducted before the registration of an FIR in corruption cases. An FIR will not stand vitiated because a preliminary enquiry has not been conducted. The decision in Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] dealt specifically with a case of disproportionate assets. In that context, the judgment holds that where relevant information regarding prima facie allegations disclosing a cognizable offence is available, the officer recording the FIR can proceed against the accused on the basis of the information without conducting a preliminary enquiry.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 50 - H Gupta - Full Document

P. Sirajuddin Etc vs State Of Madras Etc on 9 March, 1970

Sirajuddin [P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 240] and considering the observations by this Court inLalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] before lodging the FIR, an enquiry is held and/or conducted after following the procedure as per Maharashtra State Anti-Corruption & Prohibition Intelligence Bureau Manual, it cannot be said that the same is illegal and/or the police officer, Anti-Corruption Bureau has no jurisdiction and/or authority and/or power at all to conduct such an enquiry at pre-registration of FIR stage."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 440 - G K Mitter - Full Document

K. Veeraswami vs Union Of India And Others on 25 July, 1991

In the instant case also though the writ Court vide order dated 09.10.2021 restrained the respondents from requiring the petitioner to furnish any information pertaining to assets and likewise, the inquiry report dated 19.09.2024 sent along with confidential letter dated 09.10.2024 has also categorically recorded that the explanation of the petitioner has not been taken with regard to disproportionate assets, however, the same will not and cannot resile from the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Apex court in the aforesaid judgments that the accused public servant does not have any right to explain the disproportionate assets prior to lodging of First Information Report. Thus even if the explanation of the petitioner has not been taken, the same would not vitiate the impugned First Information Report.
Supreme Court of India Cites 91 - Cited by 259 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. ... on 8 October, 2021

33. As regard the various interim orders that have been passed by this Court as indicated in detail above, suffice it to say that apart from the said orders being only interim orders, careful perusal of the said interim orders would indicate that none of the interim orders have considered the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Thommandru Hannah Vijaylakshmi (supra), Sri Channakeshava.
Supreme Court of India Cites 57 - Cited by 43 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Yashwant Sinha vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 14 November, 2019

In his concurring opinion, K.M. Joseph, J. described that a barrier to granting the relief of registration of an FIR against a public figure would be the observations of this Court in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] noting that a preliminary enquiry may be desirable before doing so. Joseph, J. observed : (Yashwant Sinha case [Yashwant Sinha v. CBI, (2020) 2 SCC 338, paras 114-115 and 117] , SCC pp. 385 & 387-89, paras 108, 110, 112 & 114) "108.
Supreme Court of India Cites 50 - Cited by 66 - S K Kaul - Full Document
1   2 3 Next