Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.36 seconds)

Srinivasa Gopal vs Union Territory Of Arunachal Pradesh ... on 18 July, 1988

In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court categorically held that when a statute prescribes a specific period of limitation for taking cognizance, courts are duty-bound to strictly adhere to it. Any extension must be preceded by recorded reasons reflecting judicial satisfaction. Failure to do so renders the continuation of criminal proceedings arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 24 - S Mukharji - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), has authoritatively held that criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed where their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law, or where such proceedings are initiated or continued in contravention of express statutory provisions. One of the recognized categories laid down therein squarely covers Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19704 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026 6/7 cases where continuation of proceedings results in manifest injustice due to clear legal infirmities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1