Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 49 (0.36 seconds)Section 203 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs Saroj Ranjan Sarkar on 21 December, 1961
112. Under the above circumstances, this Court finds that the second complaint is not maintainable as this has been filed by the first respondent/complainant on identical facts, which were raised in the first complaint in Crl.M.P.No.507 of 2007. This Court also finds that the allegations levelled against the accused persons in both the complaints are one and the same and nothing new allegations are disclosed in the second complaint. The first respondent/complainant has also miserably failed to make out the case that even after his exercise of due diligence the facts alleged in the second complaint were not within the application of the first complaint. It is therefore crystal clear that the second complaint in Crl.M.P.No.2145 of 2007 in Crime No.703 of 2007 is not covered within the exceptional circumstances envisaged in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 and in view of the aforestated reasons, the second complaint cannot be entertained.
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976
Ranvir Singh vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 1 September, 2009
In Mahesh Chand's case reported in (2003) 1 SCC 734 and Ranvir Singh's case reported in (2009) 9 SCC 642, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is settled law that there is no statutory bar in filing a second complaint on the same set of facts.
Poonam Chand Jain & Anr vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010
111. As held in Poonam Chand Jain and another vs. Fazru, AIR 2010 SC 659, the principles laid down in Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 SC 876 are settled and are holding the field since 1962 and this has been followed by several High Courts as well as the Apex Court.