Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.23 seconds)Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 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]
Mahesh Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 3 March, 2009
Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present
or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint
disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal
texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute
which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is
available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this
case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.
17- Judgments passed in C.B.I Vs K.M Sharan reported in
2008(4) SCC 471 & in Mahesh Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan
reported in 2009(4) SCC 439 also talks about the principles and
scope of the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
charge-sheet and held that the High Court is not supposed to
"embark upon the inquiry whether the allegations in FIR and the
charge-sheet were reliable or not and thereupon to render definite
finding about truthfulness or veracity of the allegations" High Court
should have limited its considerations to "... Whether allegations
made in the FIR and the charge-sheet taken on their face value and
accepted in their entirely would prima facie constitute an offense for
making out a case against the accused"
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
R. Kalyani vs Janak C. Mehta & Ors on 24 October, 2008
"11. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that the High
Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction only when one
or the other propositions of law, as laid down in R. Kalyani
v. Janak C. Mehta is attracted, which are as under:
Pappu @ Hari Om vs State Of M.P on 31 March, 2009
561) and Pappu v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2000 SCC
OnLine MP 442 : 2001 Cri LJ 875 (Page 876).