Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Tmt.S.Radha Mony vs The Home Secretary on 19 December, 2006 cites

Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural ... vs Sahngoo Ram Arya And Anr. on 7 May, 2002

In the decision Secretary v. Sahngoo Ram Arya reported in (2002) 5 SCC 521, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the High Court has power under Article 226 to direct an enquiry by CBI, and a decision to direct an enquiry by CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 269 - Full Document

The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner on 2 March, 2006

In the light of the decisions referred above, we are satisfied that the materials available on record in this case do not disclose a prima facie case, calling for investigation by CBI. But, on the other hand, we are of the considered view, as discussed earlier that the case has been investigated leisurely and in an irresponsible manner by the investigating agency, as held by the Apex Court in the decision reported in 1994 SCC (Cri) 1653, in spite of various representations and reminders sent by the petitioner to the respondents and other authorities, raising serious suspicious circumstances, on the mysterious death of her son and daughter-in-law and the case has been abruptly closed in a casual manner. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the considered view that to meet the ends of justice, prima facie materials are available for ordering further investigation by CBCID of the State.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Alliraj Gounder vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 April, 2005

26. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision Aliraj Gounder v. The Inspector of Police reported in 2005 (3) CTC 673, has held that if there is efficacious alternative remedy available, the petitioner cannot sought for transfer of investigation to C.B.I. This court relying on the decision in C.B.I v. Rajesh Gandhi reported in 1997 Crl.L.J 63, has held that an accused cannot have any right to say as to who should investigate the offence, he is charged with and decision to investigate or decision on agency which should investigate does not attract the principles of natural justice and that the same principle is applicable to the complainants and ordinarily complainants cannot say as to which agency should investigate an alleged criminal offence.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigationand Anr vs Rajesh Gandhi And Anr on 7 October, 1996

26. The Division Bench of this Court in the decision Aliraj Gounder v. The Inspector of Police reported in 2005 (3) CTC 673, has held that if there is efficacious alternative remedy available, the petitioner cannot sought for transfer of investigation to C.B.I. This court relying on the decision in C.B.I v. Rajesh Gandhi reported in 1997 Crl.L.J 63, has held that an accused cannot have any right to say as to who should investigate the offence, he is charged with and decision to investigate or decision on agency which should investigate does not attract the principles of natural justice and that the same principle is applicable to the complainants and ordinarily complainants cannot say as to which agency should investigate an alleged criminal offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 232 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1