Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.31 seconds)Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs M. Devendrappa & Anr on 16 January, 2002
In this regard, a reference could be placed in the Judgment reported in (2002) 3 SCC 89 [State of Karnataka Vs. M.Devendrappa], wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:-
Arun Bhandari vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 10 January, 2013
261 [Arun Bhandari Vs. State of U.P. and others] as follows:-
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu vs Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors on 29 July, 2011
32.It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arriving at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. In a proceedings instituted on a complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case in which the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. There is no need to analyse each and every aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. The statement of witnesses made on oath to be verified in full and materials put forth in the charge-sheet ought to be taken note of as a whole before arriving at an conclusion. It is the material concluded during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused persons.
From the dictum laid down in the above said judgments, I am of the opinion that in the instant case, on consideration of the materials available on record, I find that there is a case for investigation. It is not necessary for this Court to go into each and every aspect of the complaint at this stage. Further more, even in the course of investigation, the Police can alter the charges, if the materials gathered make out any other offence, and file a final report including all the charges. Only after collecting the materials during the course of investigation, it could be seen whether there is an intention of cheating on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is pre-mature in nature. In such view of the matter, I am of the opinion tha3t it is not a fit case to quash the FIR. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition.
Devender Kumar Singla vs Baldev Krishan Singla on 17 February, 2004
In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment, which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant, reported in (2005) 9 SCC 15 [Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishnan Singla] wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:-
V.Y.Jose & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 16 December, 2008
Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary And Ors. on 28 August, 1992
In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and another [(2006) 7 SCC 188], the Court, after referring to Janata Dal Vs. H.S.Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1], has observed that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the IPC are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles and such inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. This Court has further stated that it is not proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It has been further pronounced that it would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint could not be proceeded with. The Bench has opined that the meticulous analysis of the case is not necessary and the complaint has to be read as a whole and if it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.
From a reading of the dictum laid down in the above said judgments, it is clear that it is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the accused and it may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the instant case, it is the submission of the prosecution that in a similar fashion the petitioner had obtained title documents from some other persons and sold the property for a lesser price and thereby, caused wrongful loss to the said persons and those persons have also lodged complaints against the petitioner.