Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Jagarajan @ Jayan vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2008 cites

Nikhil Merchant vs C.B.I. & Anr on 20 August, 2008

3. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered by the learned Magistrate and it is at this stage that the petitioners have come Crl.M.C.No. 4260 of 2008 2 before this Court with a prayer that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC) may be invoked to bring to premature termination this prosecution against the petitioners and the 5th respondent, which has now become irrelevant and unnecessary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 14306 - A Kabir - Full Document

B.S. Joshi & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

8. In a line of decisions it has now been held that the mere fact that the offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. would Crl.M.C.No. 4260 of 2008 4 not fetter the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. Reliance is placed in the decisions in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (AIR 2003 SC 1386) as also the decisions referred above in support of this proposition. The learned Prosecutor argues that the mere fact that the parties have compounded the offences even when the offences are non- compoundable is not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The crucial question is whether the dispute is one which is private and personal between the indictees and the victims. Even when the offence is not compoundable, in an appropriate case, it will be open to the court to hold that the dispute is one which is private and personal between the parties. This court has alertly got to verify whether any issues of public justice or the interests of public are involved. Only if those questions are answered in the negative, can the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be invoked on the ground that there has been a composition of the non-compoundable offences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 11910 - H K Sema - Full Document

M.S. Santhoshkumar vs K.G. Mohanan on 10 July, 2008

9. I have adverted to this aspect of the matter in the decisions in Santhoshkumar v. Mohanan (2008 (3) KLT 461 and Babeesh @ Babin Kumar v. S.I. of Police (2008 (3) KHC 713). I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances, that it is impossible to come to a conclusion that the dispute is one which is private and personal between the parties. Going by the materials collected, it is political animosity which has prompted the accused persons to trespass into the residential building of the victims after making sufficient prior preparations and to indulge in the acts of violence.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 18 - R Basant - Full Document

Madan Mohan Abbot vs State Of Punjab on 26 March, 2008

3. Investigation is complete. Final report has already been filed. Committal proceedings has been registered by the learned Magistrate and it is at this stage that the petitioners have come Crl.M.C.No. 4260 of 2008 2 before this Court with a prayer that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC) may be invoked to bring to premature termination this prosecution against the petitioners and the 5th respondent, which has now become irrelevant and unnecessary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 14260 - H S Bedi - Full Document
1   2 Next