Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.41 seconds)
Smt. Rupal Prashant vs State Of Telangana on 26 September, 2018 cites

M.P. Tej Babu vs The State Of Telangana, Represented By ... on 4 March, 2016

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when the proceedings are initiated as a weapon of harassment, the Court MSM,J Crl.P_12762_2017 18 can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings and relied on the judgment of this Court rendered in "M.P.Tej Babu v. State of Telangana" (referred supra), wherein this Court held as follows:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 7 - C V Reddy - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

The Court posed the question whether the case of the appellants therein came under any of the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra) and whether the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint if accepted in entirety did make out a case against the accused-Appellants therein. For the aforesaid purpose advertence was made to offences alleged against the appellants, the ingredients of the offences and the averments made in the complaint. The Court took the view that main offence alleged to have been committed by the appellants therein is cheating punishable Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Scanning the definition of 'cheating' the Court opined that 8 AIR 1996 SC 309 9 (1999) 3 SCC 259 10 AIR 1999 SC 1044 MSM,J Crl.P_12762_2017 16 there are two separate classes of acts which the persons deceived may be induced to do. In the first place he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. The second class of acts set-forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but not fraudulent or dishonest. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to state as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March, 1977

"When there is a remedy under any enactment, the Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. But in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction as held in "State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy11"
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1534 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 Next