Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 45 (0.71 seconds)Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013
As per settled view, the Magistrate/Court of competent of jurisdiction, after verifying the truth and veracity of the allegations made in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., can (i) pass an order contemplated by Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., (ii) direct examination of complaint and witnesses and proceed further in the manner provided by Section 202 Cr.P.C. and (iii) can also direct the preliminary inquiry by police in terms of law laid down in the judgment passed in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra). The Magistrate/Court of competent jurisdiction is also empowered to reject the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 16 March, 2015
]; CREF Finance Ltd.v. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 467 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1697]; Madhao v. State of Maharashtra [Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 SCC 615 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 141] (Para 18); Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [(2015) 6 SCC 439] (Para 22); Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] (Para 30), observed as under:-
Section 2 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013
In the case of Priyanka Srivastava vs. State of U.P., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287; subject matter of which relates to preferring an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the borrower against the Officer of the financial institution after initiation of proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering the judgment(s) passed in the case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy [(1976) 3 SCC 252 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 380] (Para 17); Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa [(2013) 10 SCC 705 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 35] (Para 11); Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi [(2007) 12 SCC 641 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 330] (Para 18); Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627, SCC p. 631, Para 11 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 460.
Srinivas Gundluri & Ors vs M/S. Sepco Electric Power Const. Corpn on 30 July, 2010
In the case on hand, the learned Single Judge [Srinivas Gundluri v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn., 2009 SCC OnLine Chh 308] and the Division Bench [Srinivas Gundhuri v. Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn., WA No. 281 of 2009, order dated 1-4-2010 (Chh)] of the High Court rightly pointed out that the Magistrate did not apply his mind to the complaint for deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding and, therefore, we are of the view that the Magistrate has not committed any illegality in directing the police for investigation. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that while directing the police to register FIR, the Magistrate has committed any illegality. As a matter of fact, even after receipt of such report, the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(b) may or may not take cognizance of offence. In other words, he is not bound to take cognizance upon submission of the police report by the investigating officer, hence, by directing the police to file charge-sheet or final report and to hold investigation with a particular result cannot be construed that the Magistrate has exceeded his power as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 156."