Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs The State on 18 November, 2010
Appeal No.1376 of 2004); Dhaanjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana,
(1995) 3 SCC 757; and Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs. The State, 2010
(174) DLT 214.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
11. The parameters for exercising the power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. have been laid down in State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.
Bhajan Lal and Ors., 1992 SCC Supl.
Sundar Babu & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
Inherent
jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only
when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically
laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the
administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of
the court exists for advancement of justice and if any
attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce
injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would
be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action,
which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of
justice."
Dalip Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 15 May, 1953
In this regard reliance is placed upon
Dalip Singh vs. State, 2013 Cri.LJ 2481."
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent
No. 1 had admitter her guilt qua filing of false complaint case and
outrightly, admitted that her husband is the person, who has acted in
fabrication of document filed in the complaint case against the
petitioner. It is further submitted that respondent No. has admitted the
aforesaid facts in her affidavit Ex. CW-1/1 before court. Therefore,
Crl. Rev. P. No.842/2015 Page 2 of 8
this act of perjury is self sufficient to hold the respondents liable to be
punished under Section 340 Cr.P.C. However, the learned Appellate
court has reached to the wrong conclusion that "no offence of perjury
has been committed by the respondents". While urging the legal
principles regarding placing wrong facts and filing a false affidavit
before the court, the petitioner has placed reliance on various
decisions such as; Chandra Shahi vs. Anil Kumar Verma, 1995 SCC
(1) 421; Muthu Kuruppan vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi & Anr. (Crl.