Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.34 seconds)
Nabbe @ Lavkush vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 February, 2026 cites

Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012

15.4) Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 2/11/2026 6:34:15 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5483 15 MCRC-32189-2024 nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delicate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 53834 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 4 October, 2017

In Parbatbhai Aahir (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in declining to entertain the application for quashing the FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, as the case involved extortion, forgery, conspiracy, fabrication of documents, utilization of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the registering authorities and deprivation of the complainant therein of his interest in land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney, and consequently it was not in the interest of the society to quash the FIR on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant. Such offences could not be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicated the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 7651 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 Next