Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)
Shaiju vs State Of Kerala cites

Basir-Ul-Huq And Others vs The State Of West ... on 10 April, 1953

In Basir-ul-Haq v. State of West Bengal and Durgacharan Naik v. State of Orissa, this Court held that the provisions of this Section cannot be evaded by describing the offence as one being punishable under some other sections of IPC, though in truth and substance, the offence falls in a category mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, cognizance of such an offence cannot be taken by misdescribing it or by putting a wrong label on it."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 97 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

Durgacharan Naik And Ors vs State Of Orissa on 23 February, 1966

In Basir-ul-Haq v. State of West Bengal and Durgacharan Naik v. State of Orissa, this Court held that the provisions of this Section cannot be evaded by describing the offence as one being punishable under some other sections of IPC, though in truth and substance, the offence falls in a category mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, cognizance of such an offence cannot be taken by misdescribing it or by putting a wrong label on it."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 97 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004

6. The Apex Court in Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh [(2013) 15 SCC 624] considered the ratio in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others [(2004) 7 SCC 338] and Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and another [(2004) 13 SCC 324] and held that the order issued by the Magistrate deciding to summon an accused in exercise of his power under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. would be an order of intermediatory or quasi-final in nature and not interlocutory in nature and hence the revisionary jurisdiction provided under Section 397 can be worked out by the aggrieved party either before the Sessions Court or before the High Court. It was further held in Urmila Devi that since such an order of a Magistrate in deciding to issue process or summons to an accused in exercise of his power under Section Crl.R.P. No.1358 of 2015 -3- 200 to 204 Cr.P.C., can always be subject-matter of challenge under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear from the above decision that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is available to the aggrieved party in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issue of summons. In view of the above reason, this revision petition is maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 266 - Full Document
1   2 Next