Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006
12. Having heard the submission made at bar and after going through the
materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled
principle of law that the cognizance is with regard to the offence and not the
offender and at the stage of taking cognizance, the court concerned is not
required to consider the defence version of materials or argument, and in this
respect, nor it is required to evaluate the merits of the material evidence of the
4
Cr. M.P. No.3390 of 2019
complaint because the trial court concerned must not undertake the exercise
to find out at this stage whether the material will lead to conviction or not.
Taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any
kind but occurs as soon as the Magistrate as such applies its mind to the
suspected commission of the offence. Taking cognizance of an offence is not
the same thing as issuance of process, as has been observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka and Anr. v. Pastor
P. Raju, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 728, in paragraphs 10 and 13 as under:
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
R.R. Chari vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 19 March, 1951
Accordingly, this court is of considered view that this is not a fit case where
the entire criminal proceedings or for that matter the order dated 03.09.2019
passed by learned Special Judge, CBI, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case
No. 08A/2016-D by which the cognizance of the offences has been taken by
the learned Special judge, be quashed.
Bindeshwari Das vs The Union Of India Through C B I on 12 September, 2017
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment in the
case of Bindeshwari Das Vs. the Union of India through CBI in Cr. Revision
No.945 of 2017 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this court vide Order dated
12.09.2017, submits that as the Special Judge, CBI has not applied its mind to
show that there is sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner. Hence
the impugned order being without any justifiable and cogent reasons which
has not discussed as to what material has been collected by the Investigating
Agency or which would show that the petitioner deserves to be prosecuted in
the criminal case, the said order is not in accordance with law hence the same
be quashed.
C.B.I vs Sanjiv Paul on 10 January, 2017
10. Learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand vehemently opposes the
prayer for quashing/setting aside the entire criminal proceeding including
order taking cognizance dated 03.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge,
CBI, Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 08A/2016-D and submits that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India deprecates the practice of quashing of
cognizance and thereby nip the criminal prosecution in the bud itself, as is
evident from the observations made in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Sanjiv Paul in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2017 arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No. 9590 of 2013 dated 10.01.2017, paragraph nos. 3 & 4 of which
reads as under:-
1