Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.72 seconds)
Lata W/O Pramod Dangre vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Ghatanji ... on 22 September, 2022 cites

Mahendra K C vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2021

(29) It is also significant, as noted above, that the suicide note is dated 09/09/2021, while the actual act of committing suicide took place after about five days on 14/09/2021. There is no proximate link between the suicide note recording harassment allegedly at the behest of the petitioner and the extreme step taken by the deceased on 14/09/2021. The judgment in the case of Mahendra K.C. Vs. State of Karnataka (supra) of the Supreme Court is distinguishable on facts, for the reason that there was specific threat of being killed by rowdies, recorded in the suicide note, which led to anxiety and fear in the mind of the deceased, but such is not the case in the present matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 55 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 May, 2018

(17) In the case of Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2018) 7 SCC 781 , the Supreme Court took note of the fact that there were indeed two lines of cases in the context of quashing of criminal proceedings, when the accused was facing charge of offence under Section 306 of the IPC. After taking note thereof, in the said judgment, the Supreme Court held that the accused PAGE 11 OF 21 J - Cri.W.P.No. 866.2021.odt may face trial if the material on record prima facie shows that the situation was created deliberately by the accused so as to drive the victim to suicide. On the facts of the said case, it was found that the FIR and the criminal proceedings deserved to be quashed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 25 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Didigam Bikshapathi & Anr vs State Of A.P on 29 November, 2007

PAGE 14 OF 21 J - Cri.W.P.No. 866.2021.odt (22) Similarly, the Supreme Court in the cases of Didigam Bikshpathi and another Vs. State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 527, Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2018 SC 1923 and Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat, AIR 2019 SC 224 , found on facts and on perusing suicide notes in the said cases that prima facie ingredients of offence under Section 306 read with 107 of the IPC were made out and accordingly held against the accused persons. (23) Therefore, it becomes clear that the principles that have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments in the context of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, have to be applied to the facts of the individual case to conclude, as to whether the criminal proceedings deserve to be interdicted at this stage of FIR and charge-sheet itself or that the accused deserves to face trial. (24) In order to apply the aforementioned principles laid down by the Supreme Court and followed by this Court, it would be necessary to refer to the suicide note in the present case. The material available on record shows that the oral report lodged by the informant/complainant was virtually based on the aforementioned suicide note. A perusal of the suicide note shows that it was dated PAGE 15 OF 21 J - Cri.W.P.No. 866.2021.odt 09/09/2021, while the actual act of suicide was committed on 14/09/2021. We have noted above that even when there was a gap of only two days between the incident alleged against the accused and the actual act of suicide committed by the deceased, the Supreme Court found that there was no proximate link between the two, because the deceased had enough time to weigh the pros and cons of the act of committing suicide.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 52 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Narayan Malhari Thorat vs Vinayak Deorao Bhagat on 28 November, 2018

PAGE 14 OF 21 J - Cri.W.P.No. 866.2021.odt (22) Similarly, the Supreme Court in the cases of Didigam Bikshpathi and another Vs. State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 527, Munshiram Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2018 SC 1923 and Narayan Malhari Thorat Vs. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat, AIR 2019 SC 224 , found on facts and on perusing suicide notes in the said cases that prima facie ingredients of offence under Section 306 read with 107 of the IPC were made out and accordingly held against the accused persons. (23) Therefore, it becomes clear that the principles that have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments in the context of Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, have to be applied to the facts of the individual case to conclude, as to whether the criminal proceedings deserve to be interdicted at this stage of FIR and charge-sheet itself or that the accused deserves to face trial. (24) In order to apply the aforementioned principles laid down by the Supreme Court and followed by this Court, it would be necessary to refer to the suicide note in the present case. The material available on record shows that the oral report lodged by the informant/complainant was virtually based on the aforementioned suicide note. A perusal of the suicide note shows that it was dated PAGE 15 OF 21 J - Cri.W.P.No. 866.2021.odt 09/09/2021, while the actual act of suicide was committed on 14/09/2021. We have noted above that even when there was a gap of only two days between the incident alleged against the accused and the actual act of suicide committed by the deceased, the Supreme Court found that there was no proximate link between the two, because the deceased had enough time to weigh the pros and cons of the act of committing suicide.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 33 - U U Lalit - Full Document
1   2 Next