Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs Saroj Ranjan Sarkar on 21 December, 1961
In
the case of Pramatha Nath v. Saroj Ranjan AIR
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:39:12 :::
11
1962 SC 876, in paragraphs 48 and 58 the subject
is discussed. It is laid down that the order of
dismissal passed under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. is,
however, no bar to the entertainment of second
complaint on the same facts, but it will be
entertained only in exceptional circumstances e.g.
where the order is passed on an incomplete record
or on mis-understanding nature of the complaint
or it is manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or
where new facts which could not with reasonable
diligence have been brought on the record in the
previous proceedings, have been adduced. It cannot
be said to be in the interest of justice that
after a decision has been given against the
complainant upon a full consideration of his case,
he or any other person should be given another
opportunity to have his complaint enquired into.
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 204 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya & Anr vs S.N. Thakur And Anr on 25 April, 1986
09. The second case relied upon by Advocate
Shri R.S. Deshmukh is A.S. Gauraya vs. S.N. Thakur
AIR 1986 SC. 1440, wherein complaint was dismissed
for default and it is observed that the Magistrate
had no inherent power to restore the case.
Mahesh Chand vs B. Janardhan Reddy & Anr on 4 December, 2002
12. The last case cited is Mahesh Chand v. B.
Janardhan Reddy AIR 2003 SC 702. Respondent No.2
also relied upon the case of Mahesh Chandra and
more particularly on observations in paragraphs
14, 15 and 19.