Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.08 seconds)Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Anr on 5 October, 1999
194) , State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (1999(2)
SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma (1996 (7)
SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999 (8) SCC 728)
and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999 (3)
SCC 259).
State Of Kerala & Ors vs O.C.Kuttan & Ors on 17 February, 1999
194) , State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (1999(2)
SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma (1996 (7)
SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999 (8) SCC 728)
and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999 (3)
SCC 259).
State Of U.P vs O.P. Sharma on 6 February, 1996
194) , State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (1999(2)
SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma (1996 (7)
SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999 (8) SCC 728)
and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999 (3)
SCC 259).
Smt. Rashmi Kumar vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada on 18 December, 1996
194) , State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan (1999(2)
SCC 651), State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma (1996 (7)
SCC 705), Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar
Bhada (1997 (2) SCC 397), Satvinder Kaur v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999 (8) SCC 728)
and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999 (3)
SCC 259).
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013
16. The Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs.
State of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 has held as
under :
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
11. As noted above, the powers possessed by
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are very
wide and the very plenitude of the power requires
great caution in its exercise. The court must be
careful to see that its decision, in exercise of this
power, is based on sound principles. The inherent
power should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the
20 MCRC.1367/2017
highest court of a State should normally refrain
from giving a prima facie decision in a case where
the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so
when the evidence has not been collected and
produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material. Of course,
no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard
to cases in which the High Court will exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the
proceeding at any stage. It would not be proper
for the High Court to analyse the case of the
complainant in the light of all probabilities in
order to determine whether a conviction would be
sustainable and on such premises arrive at a
conclusion that the proceedings are to be
quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the
material before it and conclude that the complaint
cannot be proceeded with. When an information
is lodged at the police station and an offence is
registered, then the mala fides of the informant
would be of secondary importance. It is the
material collected during the investigation and
evidence led in the court which decides the fate
of the accused person. The allegations of mala
fides against the informant are of no consequence
and cannot by themselves be the basis for
quashing the proceedings".