Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
"7. The legal position regarding the exercise of powers under
Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India by the High Court in relation to pending
criminal proceedings including FIRs under investigation is fairly
well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. Suffice it to
say that in cases where the complaint lodged by the complainant
whether before a Court or before the jurisdictional poke station
makes out the commission of an offence, the High Court would not
in the ordinary course invoke its powers to quash such
proceedings except in rare and compelling circumstances
enumerated in the decision of this Court in State of Haryana and
Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. MANU/SC/0115/1992 : 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335.
Bhura Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008
10. The quashing of the FIR has also been prayed on the ground that
not only the contents of FIR are false, even otherwise the Courts at Delhi
have no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Referring to the contents of
FIR, he submitted that all the offences referred to in the FIR were
allegedly committed in Ludhiana, hence Delhi Police had no jurisdiction
to investigate the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon Bhura Ram vs. State of Rajasthan in Crl.A. No.587/2008 decided
on 02.04.2008 and Sudhir Kapur & Ors. vs. State & Anr. in Crl.M.A.
No.799/2009 decided on 10.08.2010 wherein in similar circumstances,
FIR has been quashed by the Courts.
Sunita Kumari Kashyap vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 11 April, 2011
In Sunita Kumari Kashyap's case, which also pertaining to
matrimonial dispute, the complainant/wife was residing in her
matrimonial home at Ranchi where she was harassed and tortured and
after giving birth to a girl child, circumstances became worse as her
husband started demanding that the house belonging to her father in
Gaya be given to him. Not only that she was also asked not to return to
her matrimonial home at Ranchi till this demand was fulfilled. The
complainant lodged FIR under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC at Gaya i.e.
where she was living at her paternal home. The question that arose for
consideration before Supreme Court was whether the Courts at Gaya,
where the complainant was residing, had the territorial jurisdiction as the
atrocities on her were allegedly committed at Ranchi at her matrimonial
home.