Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)Section 175 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sukhwasi Son Of Hulasi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 September, 2007
11. This Court in the case of Sukhwasi (Supra) taking into account the various decisions of the Supreme Court and also an earlier Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Babu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2001) ACC 201 held as under:-
Lalaram vs State Of U.P. And 13 Others on 18 December, 2020
He submits that tested on the anvil of the law summarized by this Court in Lala Ram (Supra), the impugned order does not suffer from any legal or factual error, which may require interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S.
Ram Babu Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 November, 2014
In the opinion of this Court, the consideration by the Learned Magistrate of factors weighing upon his decision to either treat the application moved before him seeking registration of a case and an investigation to be treated as a complaint or to direct registration of a First Information Report, are still the same when it comes to exercise of powers under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. Thus, the propositions of law summarized in the case of Lala Ram (Supra), as quoted above, still apply to proceedings under Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. The considerations of the Learned Magistrate extracted above on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, are in consonance with Paragraph Nos.40.06 and 40.07 of the case of Lala Ram (Supra) extracted above. The Learned Magistrate has given his reasons why a police investigation is not required. He has recorded his satisfaction that nothing has been mentioned in the application, which would require the collection of such evidence which can only be done by a police investigation. One more factor that weighs with this Court while considering the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kanpur Dehat, is that the alleged attack on the brother of the applicant is stated to have occurred on 19.07.2024. After the lapse of more than one and a half years from the date of the incident, no physical evidence would reasonably remain at an open place, and therefore, recovery of blood-stained soil at this stage would not be possible.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 19 March, 2015
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2015 (6) SCC 287, made it mandatory for all applications under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant, who sought the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Learned Magistrate. The Supreme Court while taking into account the misuse of the provision under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., observed that applications were being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever, only to harass certain persons. The Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos.26 and 27 of the above-mentioned judgement has observed as under:-
Maharashtra Court-fees Act.
1