Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.22 seconds)Section 403 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 51 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Copyright Act, 1957
Section 63 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
13. It would be apposite to reproduce para 102 of
the State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21495 of 2024 dt.23-01-2025
14/20
Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases
335, which reads as under:
Arun Gulab Gawali vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 November, 2022
27. The High Court proceeded [Arun Gulab
Gawali v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 SCC
OnLine Bom 1524] on the perception that as the
complainant himself was not supporting the
complaint, he would not support the case of the
prosecution and there would be no chance of
conviction, thus the trial itself would be a futile
exercise. Quashing of FIR/complaint on such a
ground cannot be held to be justified in law.
Ordinarily, the Court of Session is empowered to
discharge an accused under Section 227 CrPC
even before initiating the trial. The accused can,
therefore, move the trial court itself for such a
relief and the trial court would be in a better
position to analyse and pass an order as it is
possessed of all the powers and the material to do
so. It is, therefore, not necessary to invoke the
jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for the
quashing of a prosecution in such a case. The
reliance on affidavits by the High Court would be
a weak, hazy and unreliable source for
adjudication on the fate of a trial. The
presumption that an accused would never be
convicted on the material available is too risky a
proposition to be accepted readily, particularly in
heinous offences like extortion."