Judgments - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings
Managing Director Vs State Of M.P.
Thus, as the Marico Industries Limited, Mumbai has not been arraigned as an accused, therefore, the prosecution of the applicant in his official capacity is not permissible because he cannot be vicariously held liable for the offence committed by the Company unless and until, the Company which is a juristic entity is arraigned as an accused. Full Judgment
Mrs. Indu Batni and 1 ano. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. FATEHKARAN MEHDU
The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and Full Judgment
Amar Singh Vs Ramdayal
THE STATE OF TELANGANA Vs. HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI & ORS.
The seminal issue that arises for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the High Court while refusing to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to interfere in an application for quashment of the investigation, can restrain the investigating agency not to arrest the accused persons during the course of investigation. There Full Judgment
SHARAT BABU DIGUMARTI Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
HDFC SECURITIES LTD.& ORS. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
However, it appears to us that this order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. requiring investigation by the police, cannot be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at this stage, requires quashing of the investigation. We must keep in our mind that the stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate. Full Judgment
Panchhi And 5 Others V/s State Of U.P. And Another
Bhagwant Gupta And 5 Others V/s State Of U.P. And Another
ARVIND KEJRIWAL Vs ARUN JAITLEY & ORS
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Vs. GAURAV VARSHNEY AND ANR.
Laxman Patel versus State Of Madhya Pradesh
Nagesh Shukla V/s State Of U.P. And Another
Suboor Noor V/s State Of U.P. And Another
J.RAMESH KAMATH & ORS. Vs. MOHANA KURUP & ORS.
Jagram Singh And 5 Others V/s State Of U.P. And Another
Dinesh Babu Garg S/o Narayandas Garg vs. State of M.P.
SUJOY MITRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
MADAN RAZAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
PROF. N.K.GANGULY Vs. CBI NEW DELHI
“....Whether sanction is to be accorded or not, is a matter for the Government to consider. The absolute power to accord or withhold sanction on the Government is irrelevant and foreign to the duty cast on that Court which is the ascertainment of the true nature of the act.” “It is clear that the first part of Section 197(1) provides a special protection, inter Full Judgment