Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Tara Rai vs State Of Sikkim And Ors on 12 December, 2013
"6. This Court in Mr. Tara Rai vs. State of Sikkim and
another, Crl.
Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra)
answered the reference and held that it cannot be said that
B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant and Manoj Sharma cases
(supra) were not correctly decided. The Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power
given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised
8
Crl. M.C. No. 07/2014
where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute
would depend on the facts and circumstances in the case.
Abasaheb Yadav Honmane And Ashwini ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2008
Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian
Singh's case (supra) considered its various judgments and also
the judgment of five-Judge Bench of Punjab & Haryana in
Kulwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2007) 4
CTC 769 and a judgment of three-Judge Bench of the Bombay
High Court in Abasahib Yadav Honmane vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2008) 2 MAH LJ 856.
State Of Sikkim & Ors vs Adup Tshering Bhutia & Ors on 18 February, 2014
9. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Further
proceedings of GR Case No. 09 of 2014 State of Sikkim vs.
Phuchung Tshering Bhutia, arising out of FIR No. 57/2013
dated 23.11.2013, pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate (West) at Gyalshing are quashed and set
aside."
Shri Phuchung Tshering Bhutia & Ors vs State Of Sikkim on 19 May, 2014
6. This Court in Shri Phuchung Tshering Bhutia &
Others vs. State of Sikkim, Crl.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003
"13. The larger Bench consisting of three-Judge of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), considered a
reference, referred by a two-Judge Bench, to see the
correctness of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi
vs. State of Haryana : (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant
vs. CBI : (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State :
(2008) 16 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had
permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences relating
to matrimonial and civil disputes.
Nikhil Merchant vs C.B.I. & Anr on 20 August, 2008
"13. The larger Bench consisting of three-Judge of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Gian Singh's case (supra), considered a
reference, referred by a two-Judge Bench, to see the
correctness of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi
vs. State of Haryana : (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant
vs. CBI : (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Manoj Sharma vs. State :
(2008) 16 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had
permitted compounding of non-compoundable offences relating
to matrimonial and civil disputes.