Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of
the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be
careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the
highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a
prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are
incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been
collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved,
whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in
their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no
hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which
the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of
quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See : The Janata Dal etc.
v. H.S. Chowdhary and others, etc.
Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr on 12 October, 1995
222), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
and another (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala and others v. O.C.
Kuttan and others (1999 (2) SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O. P.
Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC 728), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT
of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216).
State Of Kerala & Ors vs O.C.Kuttan & Ors on 17 February, 1999
222), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
and another (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala and others v. O.C.
Kuttan and others (1999 (2) SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O. P.
Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC 728), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT
of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216).
State Of U.P vs O.P. Sharma on 6 February, 1996
222), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
and another (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala and others v. O.C.
Kuttan and others (1999 (2) SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O. P.
Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC 728), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT
of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216).
Smt. Rashmi Kumar vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada on 18 December, 1996
222), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
and another (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala and others v. O.C.
Kuttan and others (1999 (2) SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O. P.
Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC 728), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT
of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216).
Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Anr on 5 October, 1999
222), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and another v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
and another (1995 (6) SCC 194), State of Kerala and others v. O.C.
Kuttan and others (1999 (2) SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O. P.
Sharma (1996 (7) SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) and another (1999 (8) SCC 728), Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT
of Delhi and others AIR 1999 SC 1216).
State Of Karnataka vs M. Devendrappa & Anr on 16 January, 2002
These aspects were also highlighted in State of Karnataka v.
M. Devendrappa and another (2002 (3) SCC 89).
Smt. Chand Dhawan vs Jawahar Lal And Ors on 28 April, 1992
In Chand Dhawan
(Smt.) v. Jawahar Lal and Ors. (1992 (3) SCC 317), it was observed
that when the materials relied upon by a party are required to be
proved, no inference can be drawn on the basis of those materials
to conclude the complaint to be unacceptable. The Court should
not act on annexures to the petitions under Section 482 of the
Code, which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and
proved. When the factual position of the case at hand is
considered in the light of principles of law highlighted, the
inevitable conclusion is that the High Court was not justified in
quashing the investigation and proceedings in the connected case
(Crime No. 116/94) registered by the Special Police Establishment,
Lokayukt, Gwalior. We set aside the impugned judgment. The State
shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter further.