Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.20 seconds)Babubhai vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 26 August, 2010
As a matter of
fact, the aforesaid proposition of law making registration
of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution is reiterated and reaffirmed in the
following subsequent decisions of this Court: (1) Upkar
Singh V. Ved Prakash, (2) Babubhai V. State of
Gujarat, (3) Chirra Shivraj V. State of A.P., and (4) C.
Muniappan V. State of T. N. In C. Muniappan this Court
explained the "consequence test" i.e., if an offence
forming part of the second FIR arises as a
consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then
offences covered by both the FIRs are the same and,
accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in
law. In other words, the offences covered in both the
FIRs shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR."
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
T.T.Antony vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 12 July, 2001
In the case of "T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others"
Shivshankar Choudhary & Ors. vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 13 May, 2014
15. The aforesaid judgment referred to by the learned counsel for
the State is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case
because the conditions in which a second FIR is permissible and which
has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of
"Shiv Shankar Singh" (supra) is not fulfilled.