Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah vs Cbi & Anr on 8 April, 2013
"38. Mr Raval, learned ASG, by referring T.T. Antony
[(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] submitted that the
said principles are not applicable and relevant to the facts and
circumstances of this case as the said judgment laid down the
ratio that there cannot be two FIRs relating to the same
12 W.P. (Cr.) No. 240 of 2005 and tagged matters
offence or occurrence. The learned ASG further pointed out
that in the present case, there are two distinct
incidents/occurrences, inasmuch as one being the conspiracy
relating to the murder of Sohrabuddin with the help of
Tulsiram Prajapati and the other being the conspiracy to
murder Tulsiram Prajapati -- a potential witness to the earlier
conspiracy to murder Sohrabuddin. We are unable to accept
the claim of the learned ASG.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Upkar Singh vs Ved Prakash & Ors on 10 September, 2004
As a matter of fact, the
aforesaid proposition of law making registration of fresh FIR
impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is
reiterated and reaffirmed in the following subsequent
decisions of this Court : (1) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash
[(2004) 13 SCC 292 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 211] , (2) Babubhai v.
State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
336] , (3) Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P. [(2010) 14 SCC 444 :
Narmada Bai vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 8 April, 2011
In view of the above discussion and conclusion, the
second FIR dated 29-4-2011 being RC No. 3(S)/2011/Mumbai
filed by CBI is contrary to the directions issued in judgment
and order dated 8-4-2011 by this Court in Narmada Bai v.
State of Gujarat [(2011) 5 SCC 79 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 526]
and accordingly the same is quashed. As a consequence, the
charge-sheet filed on 4-9-2012, in pursuance of the second
FIR, be treated as a supplementary charge-sheet in the first
FIR. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of
the claim of both the parties and it is for the trial court to
decide the same in accordance with law. Consequently, Writ
Petition (Crl.) No. 149 of 2012 is allowed. Since the said relief
is applicable to all the persons arrayed as accused in the
second FIR, no further direction is required in Writ Petition
(Crl.) No. 5 of 2013."