Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Dr. Lakshman vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2019
The very same principle was also laid down in Dr.
Lakshman v. State of Karnataka2.
M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 April, 2021
In Paragraph No.60 of the Report in Neeharika (supra),
the Apex Court recognized that there may be allegations of abuse of
process of law, converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, with
a view to pressurize the accused.
Ap Mahesh Cooperative Urban Bank ... vs Ramesh Kumar Bung on 20 July, 2021
It is also relevant to note that in Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank
Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar Bung4 the
Apex Court referring to the principle laid down in M/s. Neeharika
Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) and other judgments
categorically held that in M/s. Neeharika (supra) certainly allowed
space for the High Court to pass an interim order of the nature
impugned therein, "in exceptional cases with caution and
circumspection, giving brief reasons".
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
lack the ingredients of Sections - 405 and 415 of IPC. The daughter
of respondent No.2 instead of pursuing the above said proceedings
which are pending in various Courts including this Court, respondent
No.2 had filed the complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. at a
belated stage that too in his individual capacity, suppressing the
pendency of the writ petition mentioned above. Respondent No.2 and
his daughter cannot seek a finding with regard to interpretation of
terms of the above said agreements from Investigating Officer during
investigation in Crime No.883 of 2020 under Cr.P.C., which is
impermissible under law. As observed above, there is delay in filing
the complaint. Thus, viewed from any angle, continuation of
proceedings in Crime No.883 of 2020 pending on the file of Narsingi
Police Station is an abuse of process of law. The present case
squarely falls in one of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5. Therefore, the
proceedings in Crime No.883 of 2020 of Narsingi Police Station are
liable to be quashed.
M. Sanjeeva Reddy And Ors. vs State Convenor, Common Entrance Test, ... on 14 November, 1996
19. WP 19234/2020 Dr.Sanjeeva Reddy v. State & ors.
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs Sudha Seetharam on 15 February, 2019
xv) Section - 405 of IPC deals with criminal breach of trust and
Section - 415 of IPC deals with cheating. To attract the charge as
defined under Section - 415 of IPC, there should be fraudulent or
dishonest inducement which is an essential ingredient for the said
offence. To attract the offence under Section - 420 of IPC, the
essential ingredients are; (a) delivery of property or person; and (b)
make or, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or
sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. The said
principle was laid down in Prof. R. K.Vijayasarathy v. Sudha
Seetharam1.
Cc, Chennai vs N.T. Rama Rao on 12 August, 2009
18. CC No.803/2020 V. Vajrender Rao v. State & ors.