Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.86 seconds)
Smt. Rajni Sehrawat And Another vs Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat on 14 August, 2012 cites

Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 1994

In 1995 Crl J 1751, case titled as Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala, it was held that "it is not in all the cases when witness speaks falsehood that action shall be initiated against him for perjury by invoking section 340 Cr.P.C. There must be prima facie satisfaction on the part of the Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 12 of 14 Court that such a proceeding should be initiated for the interest of justice".
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - G N Ray - Full Document

Jagjit Kaur vs Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) & Anr. on 27 October, 1999

27.It has also been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Jagjeet Kaur Vs. Harjeet Singh cited as 2000 I AD (Delhi) 129 that "the primary object to take proceeding u/s 340 Cr.P.C in instituting a complaint for giving false evidence, is to curb the evil of perjury and to keep the flow of proceeding in Courts unsullied and pure. It is only in a rare case, when the Court come to the conclusion that if a complaint is filed conviction is more or less a certainty, that it chooses to become a complainant. In such like contentious issues when the wife can again indulge in proving that the husband was wrong and she was right, it is not expedient for the Court to enter into the facts and become a complainant at the behest of the husband".
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 18 - M S Siddiqui - Full Document

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005

24.It has been held by Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenkshi Marwah cited at 118 (2005) DLT 329 (SC) that " the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to u/s 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. Before filing of the complaint, Court may hold a preliminary inquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that inquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. This expediency would normally be judged by the Court by weighing, not the magnitude of the injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon the administration of jutice".
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 822 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1   2 Next