Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.70 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 December, 2007
In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into
the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he deems it
necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN
NAGDEVE
Signing time: 3/4/2023
12:00:53 PM
5
the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The
Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself
investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce
any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned
Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned
order of the High Court.
Shweta Bhadauria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2016
6 . The Division Bench in the case of Shweta Bhadauria vs. State of
M.P. & Ors. in W.A.No.246/2016 dated 20.12.2016 has considered the
decision of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P.
& Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and accordingly, has held in paragraph 6
as under:-
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013
6 . The Division Bench in the case of Shweta Bhadauria vs. State of
M.P. & Ors. in W.A.No.246/2016 dated 20.12.2016 has considered the
decision of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P.
& Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 and accordingly, has held in paragraph 6
as under:-
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
154(3), 156(3) 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., unless the four
exceptions enumerated in decision of Apex Court in the case
o f Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, come to rescue of the
informant/victim.
Shweta Bhadauriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 21 June, 2016
In congruence with the aforesaid well settled position, a Division
Bench of this Court has taken a similar view in the case of Shweta Bhadoriya
Vs. State of M.P. & others (2017 (1) MPLJ (Cri) 338).
M. Subramaniam vs S. Janaki on 20 March, 2020
4. Recently the Apex Court in the case of M.Subramaniam Vs. S.
Janaki (Cr.A. No.102 of 2011) decided on 20/3/2020 in paragraph 6 has held
as under:-