Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)
Syed Javed Akhtar vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 3 November, 2022 cites

Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012

7.1 In the case of Deepak (supra), to which one of us (Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud) is the author, after considering the other binding decisions of this Court on the point, namely, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198; and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, it is observed and held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for "presuming" that the accused had committed the offence. It is observed and held that at that stage, the High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, take at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. It is further observed and held that at this stage the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded the accused charge- sheeted or against whom the charge is framed is likely to be convicted or not .
Supreme Court of India Cites 43 - Cited by 1303 - S Kumar - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Fatehkaran Mehdu on 3 February, 2017

7.1 In the case of Deepak (supra), to which one of us (Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud) is the author, after considering the other binding decisions of this Court on the point, namely, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198; and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, it is observed and held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for "presuming" that the accused had committed the offence. It is observed and held that at that stage, the High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, take at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. It is further observed and held that at this stage the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded the accused charge- sheeted or against whom the charge is framed is likely to be convicted or not .
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 163 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 November, 2020

In the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra), in the FIR, the wife of the deceased had stated to the effect that the deceased had a Company carrying on the business of architecture, interior design and engineering consultancy and according to the informant, her husband was over the previous two years "having pressure as he did not receive the money of work carried out by him". The FIR recites that the deceased had called at the office of the appellant and spoken to his accountant for the payment of money. Apart from the above statements, it has been stated that the deceased left behind a suicide note stating that his "money is stuck and following owners of respective companies are not paying our legitimate dues". Under such factual matrix, the Supreme Court of India had observed that it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of having abetted the suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC. But as indicated herein before, on facts the present case is distinguishable because the materials available so far prima facie discloses that the petitioner, who was a member of the same family and household was physically assaulting the deceased regularly. Therefore, in the opinion of this Page No.# 11/11 Court, on facts of this case, the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have no applicability in the present stage of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 529 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1