Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 155 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 November, 2020
In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors5, the Hon'ble Apex
Court referring to the various judgments rendered by it
categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the
proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with
extreme caution.
M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 April, 2021
In recent judgment in M/s. Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra6,
the three judges Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court laid certain
5
AIR 2021 SC 931
6
2021 LawSuit (SC) 272
16 KL,J
Crl.P.Nos.6450_2019 & 6121_2020
guidelines/parameters for the purpose of exercising powers
by High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article
226 of Constitution of India which are as under:
Priti Saraf vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 March, 2021
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Priti Saraf v. State of NCT
of Delhi7, after referring to the principle laid down by it in
earlier judgments, held that if the contents of the complaint
constitute cognizable offences, the proceedings in crime
cannot be quashed by the High Court by invoking its powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Criminal Procedure Code
contains a detailed procedure for investigation, framing of
charge and trial, and in the event when the High Court is
desirous of putting a halt to the known procedure of law, it
must use proper circumspection with great care and caution
7
Crl.A.No.296 of 2021 dated 10.03.2021
18 KL,J
Crl.P.Nos.6450_2019 & 6121_2020
to interfere in the complaint/FIR/charge sheet in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction.
Surnder Kaushik & Ors vs State Of U.P & Ors on 14 February, 2013
It is relevant to note that in a subsequent judgment
in Surender Kaushik v. State of U.P.8, the Hon'ble Apex
Court, referring to the its earlier judgments rendered in
T.T.Antony (supra), Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash9 and
Bhajan Lal (supra), held that there cannot be two FIRs
against the same accused in respect of the same case, but
when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode,
they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and
investigation can be carried out under both of them by the
same investigating agency.
Upkar Singh vs Ved Prakash & Ors on 10 September, 2004
It is relevant to note that in a subsequent judgment
in Surender Kaushik v. State of U.P.8, the Hon'ble Apex
Court, referring to the its earlier judgments rendered in
T.T.Antony (supra), Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash9 and
Bhajan Lal (supra), held that there cannot be two FIRs
against the same accused in respect of the same case, but
when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode,
they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and
investigation can be carried out under both of them by the
same investigating agency.
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014
In view of the said facts, this Criminal Petition is
disposed of directing the Investigating Officer in Crime No.900
of 2019 pending on the file of Banjara Hills Police Station,
Hyderabad, to strictly follow the procedure laid down under
Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., and the guidelines issued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar10.
However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall cooperate
with the Investigating Officer by furnishing the information
and the documents as sought by him in concluding the
investigation. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.