Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.70 seconds)Sunil Bharti Mittal vs Cbi on 9 January, 2015
"..38. The order of issuance of process is not an empty
formality. The Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to
whether sufficient ground for proceeding exists in the case or
not. The formation of such an opinion is required to be stated in
the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reasons
are given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is
a prima facie case against the accused. No doubt, that the order
need not contain detailed reasons. A reference in this respect
could be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil
Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, which reads
thus:...
Section 204 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Satinder Singh Bhasin vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 November, 2019
(ii). Pass necessary orders and directions, thereby quashing
and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.02.2023 passed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 5127/2023 Page 1 of 12
By:GAURAV SHARMA
Signing Date:05.10.2024
12:24:03
by the court of Ms. Shivali Sharma, Ld. Additional Sessions
Judge-03 (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in criminal revision
having Cr. Rev. No. 179/2022 titled as „Satinder Singh Bhasin
vs State of NCT of Delhi‟, whereby, the Ld. ASJ dismissed the
Revision Petition preferred by the Petitioner against the
impugned summoning order dated 23.01.2021;
Lalankumar Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 2022
19. The aforesaid judicial dicta has also been asserted by the petitioner
herein while arguing that the learned CMM was obligated to apply judicial
mind to determine whether sufficient grounds for proceeding against the
petitioner/accused exists or not. The judgment namely Lalankumar Singh
(Supra) which has been relied upon by the petitioner follows the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v.
Malkeet Singh Gill vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 July, 2022
In Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 8 SCC 204,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under the revisional jurisdiction, the
scope of interference is limited to the extent that the Court is only
empowered to look into the correctness and legality of the order under
challenge before it, and while exercising its power under Section 397 of the
Cr.P.C., the revisional Court does not dwell into the facts and evidence of
the case. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is as under: