Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.65 seconds)State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Satya Prakash @ Satya Dev @ Sattee on 30 May, 2023
In view of the of the above-said judgment and considering the over
all circumstances of the present case and also considering the failure of
complainant to disclose the specific words used by the accused, the court is
of considered view that merely on the allegation of abuses without
DLND010118902025 Page 5 of 13
Cr Rev
The State of NCT of Delhi
Vs.
Satya Prakash
specifying the same, prima facie offence u/s 509 IPC can not be made out
against the accused.
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 354A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
No Case for Revisional Interference: This Court has examined the
impugned order dated 26.09.2025 with care. The Ld. Trial Court has
adverted to the relevant legal principles, applied the binding Supreme
Court authority in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sanal and the very
DLND010118902025 Page 12 of 13
Cr Rev
The State of NCT of Delhi
Vs.
Satya Prakash
recent judgment in Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka, and
assessed the prosecution material with the judiciousness appropriate to
the charge stage. The discharge order is reasoned, law-compliant, and
reflects a proper application of the judicial mind. The impugned order
cannot be said to be illegal, patently illegal, or suffering from any error
of jurisdiction, procedure, or law that would attract the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 BNSS. The mere fact that a
different view may have been possible does not justify revisional
interference.
Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Zaibatarannum vs State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2023
No Case for Revisional Interference: This Court has examined the
impugned order dated 26.09.2025 with care. The Ld. Trial Court has
adverted to the relevant legal principles, applied the binding Supreme
Court authority in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Sanal and the very
DLND010118902025 Page 12 of 13
Cr Rev
The State of NCT of Delhi
Vs.
Satya Prakash
recent judgment in Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka, and
assessed the prosecution material with the judiciousness appropriate to
the charge stage. The discharge order is reasoned, law-compliant, and
reflects a proper application of the judicial mind. The impugned order
cannot be said to be illegal, patently illegal, or suffering from any error
of jurisdiction, procedure, or law that would attract the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 BNSS. The mere fact that a
different view may have been possible does not justify revisional
interference.
Fiona Shrikhande vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 22 August, 2013
(e) On the Argument That Exact Words Need Not Be Stated
The Ld. Addl PP relied upon Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra,
(2013) to argue that verbatim reproduction of abusive words is not
required. This proposition is correct in its abstract form. However, what
is required -- as the same Fiona Shrikhande decision clarifies -- is that
reading the complaint as a whole, the Court must be able to prima facie
infer the culpable intention from background facts, the occasion, the
manner in which words were used, and the persons involved.