Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)Madan Mohan Abbot vs State Of Punjab on 26 March, 2008
9. Having heard learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, considering the facts and
circumstances arising out of the present application
as well as taking into consideration the decisions
rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan
Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4
SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31,
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1)
GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
& Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears
that further continuation of criminal proceedings in
relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants
would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It
appears that the trial would be futile and further
continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the
impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law
and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the
impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside
in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of
the Code.
Nikhil Merchant vs C.B.I. & Anr on 20 August, 2008
9. Having heard learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, considering the facts and
circumstances arising out of the present application
as well as taking into consideration the decisions
rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan
Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4
SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31,
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1)
GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
& Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears
that further continuation of criminal proceedings in
relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants
would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It
appears that the trial would be futile and further
continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the
impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law
and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the
impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside
in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of
the Code.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
9. Having heard learned advocates appearing
for the respective parties, considering the facts and
circumstances arising out of the present application
as well as taking into consideration the decisions
rendered in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr., reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Madan
Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 4
SCC 582, Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation & Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 31,
Manoj Sharma Vs. State & Ors., reported in 2009 (1)
GLH 190 and Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab
& Anr. reported in 2014 (2) Crime 67 (SC), it appears
that further continuation of criminal proceedings in
relation to the impugned FIR against the applicants
would be unnecessary harassment to the applicants. It
appears that the trial would be futile and further
continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the
impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law
and hence, to secure the ends of justice, the
impugned FIR is required to be quashed and set aside
in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of
the Code.