Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)

Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 19 March, 2015

4. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down guidelines to decide applications u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. in a case titled as Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.781 OF 2012 ) DOD. 19.03.15, wherein it was held "26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. a court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 1448 - D Misra - Full Document

Subhkaran Luharuka & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 9 July, 2010

5. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up the promise subsequently, a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed (reliance being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as "Subhkaran Laharuka & Anr. Vs. State & Anr"). Thus the element of mensrea is totally missing in the present case.
Delhi High Court Cites 119 - Cited by 269 - M C Garg - Full Document
1   2 Next