Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 302 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Jimmy Jahangir Madan vs Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (Dead) By Lrs on 4 November, 2004
(2006) 5 SCC 530
3
A vague advertence is made to Section 256 Cr.P.C. in
Balasaheb's case, but the Order in effect is under Section 302 Cr.P.C.
In Jimmy Jahangir Madan v Bolly Cariyappa Hindley2, which is
referred in para No.4 of the judgment in Balasaheb's case, an identical
question came up for consideration and the Apex Court based on
Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v State of Maharashtra3, concluded that
proceedings can be continued by filing application under Section 302
Cr.P.C. Therefore, granting permission under Section 256 Cr.P.C. to
the respondent to conduct prosecution is an illegality, but the
petitioner is entitled to file appropriate application under Sections 302
and 256 Cr.P.C. if advised. Hence, the Order under challenge is liable
to be set aside while granting liberty to the petitioner to file
appropriate application before the Magistrate.
Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 10 October, 1966
(2006) 5 SCC 530
3
A vague advertence is made to Section 256 Cr.P.C. in
Balasaheb's case, but the Order in effect is under Section 302 Cr.P.C.
In Jimmy Jahangir Madan v Bolly Cariyappa Hindley2, which is
referred in para No.4 of the judgment in Balasaheb's case, an identical
question came up for consideration and the Apex Court based on
Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas v State of Maharashtra3, concluded that
proceedings can be continued by filing application under Section 302
Cr.P.C. Therefore, granting permission under Section 256 Cr.P.C. to
the respondent to conduct prosecution is an illegality, but the
petitioner is entitled to file appropriate application under Sections 302
and 256 Cr.P.C. if advised. Hence, the Order under challenge is liable
to be set aside while granting liberty to the petitioner to file
appropriate application before the Magistrate.
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shri Balasaheb K. Thackeray & Anr vs Shri Venkat @ Babru S/O Wamanrao ... on 5 July, 2006
In view of Clause (2) of Section 256 Cr.P.C, the same procedure
is applied for dispense with the appearance of the complainant and
continuation of the proceedings can be followed in case of death also.
But, it is the discretion of the Magistrate. However, Section 302 of
Cr.P.C., deals with permission to conduct prosecution and in fact the
petitioner should have filed application under Section 302 Cr.P.C.
Instead of filing such application, a petition was filed under Section
256 Cr.P.C.,
In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Chand Devi Daga and Others v Manju K. Humatani
and others, the Apex Court adverted to both Sections 256 and 302
Cr.P.C. and based on the observations in Balasaheb's case,
concluded that competent person can continue the proceedings.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Chand Devi Daga . vs Manju K. Humatani . on 3 November, 2017
In view of Clause (2) of Section 256 Cr.P.C, the same procedure
is applied for dispense with the appearance of the complainant and
continuation of the proceedings can be followed in case of death also.
But, it is the discretion of the Magistrate. However, Section 302 of
Cr.P.C., deals with permission to conduct prosecution and in fact the
petitioner should have filed application under Section 302 Cr.P.C.
Instead of filing such application, a petition was filed under Section
256 Cr.P.C.,
In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Chand Devi Daga and Others v Manju K. Humatani
and others, the Apex Court adverted to both Sections 256 and 302
Cr.P.C. and based on the observations in Balasaheb's case,
concluded that competent person can continue the proceedings.
1