Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)

Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 2 November, 2018

In Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 (4) Crimes 324, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds "[47]. As far as Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2017 is concerned, the appellants came to this Court challenging the order of cognizance only because of the reason that matter was already pending as the appellants had filed the Special Leave Petitions against the order of the High Court rejecting their petition for quashing of the FIR/Chargesheet. Having regard to these peculiar facts, writ petition has also been entertained. In any case, once we hold that FIR needs to be quashed, order of cognizance would automatically stands vitiated."
Supreme Court of India Cites 51 - Cited by 1060 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Ramgopal vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited 47 ... on 7 January, 2019

In Ramgopal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Cr.A 1489 of 2012, decided on 29.09.2021, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [11]. True it is that offences which are 'non-compoundable' cannot be compounded by a criminal court in purported exercise of its powers under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Any such attempt by the court would amount to alteration, addition and modification of Section 320 Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of Legislature. There is no patent or latent ambiguity in the language of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which may justify its wider interpretation and include such offences in the docket of 'compoundable' offences which have been consciously kept out as non- compoundable. Nevertheless, the limited jurisdiction to compound an 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 01-02-2022 22:27:09 ::: CRM-M-48063- 2021
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 850 - P S Koshy - Full Document
1   2 Next