Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.77 seconds)Uma Shankar Gopalka And Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 13 May, 2004
21.From the available materials, it is made clear that the prosecution case is absolutely baseless. In this case, in the year 2011, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were already stayed by this Court and absolutely there is no material available on the record for allowing the prosecution to go further. The offence set out against the petitioners in the charge sheet are not made out. Thus, in my considered opinion and also as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated above, the present case is liable to be quashed.
Rajiv Thapar & Ors vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013
19.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also held in the case of Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in 2013 (3) SCC 330 has held that
the High Court can quash the Criminal Proceedings pending before the trial Court, when the High Court satisfies, that
Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007
20.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the decisions of Inder Mohan Goswani and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 and the judgment reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 (1), (State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others) and also the judgment reported in 2005 (10) SCC 336 (Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar and another), wherein, it has held that the High Courts can exercise, the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., when the High Court, comes to the irrevocable conclusion that to prevent abuse of process of Court and to do real and substantial justice, the inherent powers to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution. On the appreciation of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the material available, this Court, comes to the conclusion, that the inherent powers has to be exercised in this case. Otherwise, the petitioners would be harassed further. There is no evidence available in this case, to proceed further against the petitioners. Further, the impugned complaint is brimming with improbabilities and devised with an ulterior intention to thwart the petitioners and there is no ground to proceed the criminal proceedings further.
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Tamil Nadu Prohibition Of Harassment Of Women Act, 1998 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1