Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March, 1977
"28. It is necessary here to remember the words of this
Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others
which read as follows: -
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 16 March, 2015
31. The learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on the
principle held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramdev Food Products
10
. (2012) 1 SCC 520
KL,J
W.P. No.15284 of 2020 & batch
17
Private Limited v. State of Gujarat11. In the said judgment, after
referring to the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita
Kumari1, held that the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that while
prompt registration of FIR is mandatory, checks and balances on
power of police are equally important. Power of arrest or of
investigation is not mechanical. It requires application of mind in the
manner provided. Existence of power and its exercise are different.
Delicate balance had to be maintained between the interest of society
and liberty of an individual. Commercial offences have been put in
the category of cases where FIR may not be warranted without
enquiry.
M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors on 4 November, 1997
In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also relied
upon its earlier judgment in M/s. NEPC India Limited2 and also M/s.
Pepsi Foods Ltd., v. Special Judicial Magistrate12 and finally held
that the High Courts are having power to quash the FIR by exercising
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and also by considering the
documents filed by the petitioners.
Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Anr on 5 October, 1999
32. Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel,
relied upon the principle held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)13. In the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring to various provisions
of Cr.P.C., has held that Section 177 provides for `ordinary' place of
inquiry or trial. Section 178, inter alia, provides for place of inquiry
or trial when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence
11
. (2015) 6 SCC 439
12
. (1998) 5 SCC 749
13
. (1999) 8 SCC 728
KL,J
W.P. No.15284 of 2020 & batch
18
was committed or where the offence was committed partly in one
local area and partly in other and where it consisted of several acts
done in different local areas, it could be inquired into or tried by a
court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Hence, at the
stage of investigation, it cannot be held that S.H.O. does not have
territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime.
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013
Mr. Kadmicherla Seethayya, petitioner in W.P. No.15284 of
2020 and Accused No.3 in Crime No.451 of 2020, filed the writ
petition under Article - 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the
action of respondent No.2 in registering FIR in Crime No.451 of 2020
on the complaint given by respondent No.3, which is purely civil /
commercial in nature in contravention of the conclusions/directions in
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh1, more particularly,
paragraph No.111 (vi), as illegal and to quash the proceedings against
him in the said Crime.