Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.34 seconds)Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 464 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
The law is well settled that when prosecution is sought to be quashed at an initial stage, the Court has to examine only the allegations made in the FIR / complaint / charge-sheet as to whether on the basis of materials on record, a case of prima facie commission of offence is made out or not. If prima facie case is disclosed, the Court may refuse to quash the same. Where going by the materials, no offence whatsoever is made out or prosecution is based on malafides or is an abuse of the process of the Court or where allegations are absolutely absurd / ridiculous etc, this Court may quash the criminal prosecution. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgements of the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 & State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 S.C.C. (Cr.) 426.
Md.Ibrahim & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 4 September, 2009
The case of the informant is that Harvir, a co-sharer executed a sale deed in favour of applicant no.1 in excess of his share in which applicants nos. 2 & 3 are marginal witnesses, whereas applicant no.1 claims himself to be a bonafide purchaser. It is not disputed that Harvir (non-applicant) and informant / Virendra Kumar are co-sharers. It is also not disputed that share of Harvir (non-applicant) is not defined / declared by any court of law. It is not the case of the informant that there was any fraud or deception practised by the applicants or co-accused Harvir qua him. Dispute, if any, is purely civil, coupled with the fact that a suit for cancellation has already been filed by the informant which is pending adjudication. Thus, the essential attributes of a false document as specified in Clause -d of Section 464, are lacking, making Sections 467/468/471 inapplicable in the present case. The view taken herein is also supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohd. Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (2009) 8 SCC 751.