Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
29. This Court is further mindful of the settled legal position
that quashing of criminal proceedings at the threshold is an
exception and not the rule. The parameters laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) are
required to be applied with circumspection. In the present case,
the allegations do not fall within the categories warranting
quashment, as the FIR cannot be said to be inherently absurd,
mala fide on its face, or devoid of the essential ingredients of the
alleged offences.
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013
10. Learned counsel also submitted that no preliminary
enquiry, as mandated under Section 173(3) Cr.P.C., was conducted
to ascertain the existence of a prima facie criminal offence prior to
registration of the FIR, in clear violation of the principles laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v.
Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2014 (2) SCC 1. It was
contended that by invoking the forum at Udaipur and disregarding
settled principles of law, the authorities, in connivance with the
police officials, acted with mala fide intent and in a conspiratorial
manner, resulting in vindictive and arbitrary action against the
petitioners.
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014
25.1 That the record demonstrates that a preliminary
enquiry was duly conducted prior to registration of the FIR. The
contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that no such enquiry
was undertaken is belied by the material on record. It is noted
that notices/summons were issued to the petitioners on
23.11.2025 and 29.11.2025, to which prima facie unsatisfactory
replies were submitted. The existence of such notices and replies
clearly negates the plea of non-compliance with the mandate laid
down in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and the alleged violation of due
procedure of law.
Sundar Babu & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
12. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the conduct of
the Rajasthan Police is in blatant disregard of the mandate laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., 2014 (8) SCC 273 and 2009
(14) SCC 244: Sundar Babu & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
inasmuch as the authorities ignored the settled safeguards, failed
to conduct a preliminary enquiry, did not issue notices or
summons, and proceeded with arrest in undue haste, in violation
of established legal principles.
G. Dineshkumar G. Subhashchandra ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 17 February, 2022
30. Withal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court whilst governing the
scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS, in
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra), held that at
the initial stage the sole test is whether the FIR discloses a
cognizable offence, and if it does, the enquiry must proceed
without judicial interference, as the police have a statutory right to
investigate and the High Court cannot examine the truthfulness of
allegations at this stage.
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Aryan Singh Etc. on 10 April, 2023
Further, in Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Aryan Singh (2023 SCC Online SC 379), the
Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conduct of a 'mini-trial',
holding that at this stage the Court is only required to assess
whether sufficient material exists to proceed and anything beyond
that amounts to a prohibited mini-trial; and lastly, in Mahendra
KC (supra), the Apex Court clarified that while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, the High Court
must examine the allegations "as they stand" without adding or
subtracting anything, and that analysing evidence or testing the
veracity of allegations at the initial stage is impermissible and
beyond the scope of inherent jurisdiction.
Delhi Race Club 1940 Ltd vs Bal Kishan Goel & Anr on 23 February, 2022
In this regard and in
support of the contentions made insofar, reliance was placed upon
(Uploaded on 05/01/2026 at 01:01:37 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/01/2026 at 08:37:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:55250] (8 of 18) [CRLMP-10419/2025]
various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter
alia, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. &
Anr., 2024 (10) SCC 690. It was also submitted that the
agreements between the parties were acted upon openly and in
the public domain, and there was neither any allegation nor any
material to suggest the existence of fraudulent or dishonest
intention on the part of the petitioners from the inception of the
transaction, which is a sine qua non for offences of cheating or
criminal breach of trust. Therefore, it can be deduced that the
impugned FIR is an afterthought, amounts to abuse of the process
of law, and impermissibly seeks to convert a civil dispute into a
criminal prosecution.
Punit Beriwala vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 April, 2023
(2022) 2 SCC 2019, Punit Beriwal Vs. The State of NCT of
Delhi & Ors.: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983 & Preeti Saraf Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi : 2021 (16) SCC 142.
1