Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN & FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
Ajay Kumar Parmar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1496 of 2012
Decided On : 27-09-2012
Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 227-Scope and ambit of-The court should not pass an order of acquittal by resorting to a course of not taking cognizance, where prima facie case is made out by the Investigating Agency- More so, it is the duty of court to safeguard the right and interests of the victim, who does not participate in discharge proceedings- At the stage of application of Section 227, court has to shift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused- Thus, appreciation of evidence at this stage, is not permissible (Para 12)
Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Sections 207,208,209- Committal of a case exclusively triable by Court of Sessions- The scheme of the Code, particularly, the provisions of Sections 207 to 209 Cr.P.C., mandate Magistrate to commit case to Court of Sessions, when the charge-sheet is filed- Committal of a case exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, in a case instituted by police is mandatory- The scheme of Code simply provides that Magistrate can determine, whether the facts stated in the report make out an offence triable exclusively, by Court of Sessions- Once he reaches the conclusion that facts alleged in the report, make out an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he must commit the case to the Sessions Court (Para 13)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Sections 45, 47 and 73-Evidence of handwriting expert-Admissibility of- The opinion of a handwriting expert is fallible/liable to error like that of any other witness, and yet, it cannot be brushed aside as useless- There is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting, by using its own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then from applying its own observation to prove the said handwritings to be the same or different, as the case may be, but in doing so, the Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must refrain from playing the role of an expert, for the simple reason that the opinion of the Court may also not be conclusive- The Court, as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon comparison made by it- However, where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of any witness, Court may then apply its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision (Para 23)
Facts of the Case :
Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, by way of which, High Court has upheld the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge in Revision Petition . By way of the said revisional order, the court had reversed the order of discharge of the appellant for the offences under Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj.
Findings of the Court :
Magistrate had no business to discharge the appellant. Magistrate was bound under law, to commit case to Sessions Court, where such application for discharge would be considered. The order of discharge was therefore, a nullity, being without jurisdiction-.
Result : Appeal dismissed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
When an offence is cognizable by the Sessions court, a Magistrate does not have the jurisdiction to probe into the matter or discharge the accused; instead, the Magistrate is bound to commit the case to the Sessions court. Any order of discharge in such cases is considered a nullity and without legal effect (!) (!) .
The process of recording a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. requires proper identification and adherence to procedural safeguards. Statements recorded without proper identification or in haste, especially where signatures do not match or signatures are dissimilar, raise suspicion about their authenticity and legal sanctity (!) (!) (!) .
The court should not pass an order of acquittal by simply not taking cognizance when a prima facie case is established by the investigation. It is the duty of the court to consider whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the accused, and at this stage, the court should not weigh the evidence or appreciate its credibility (!) (!) .
For cases exclusively triable by the Sessions court, the Magistrate must commit the case to the Sessions court once it is determined that the facts make out such an offence. The scheme of the law mandates this mandatory commitment, and failure to do so renders any order of discharge or non-cognizance invalid (!) (!) .
The opinion of handwriting experts is fallible and should not be solely relied upon. The Court can compare signatures or handwritings itself, but it must do so cautiously and with awareness of the potential for error. When the Court undertakes such a comparison, it should be cautious and not substitute itself for an expert unless necessary (!) (!) (!) .
The identification of the victim and the authenticity of her statements are crucial. Discrepancies in signatures and the manner of her appearance before the Court, especially when she appears at a different location and without proper identification, cast doubt on the reliability of her statements and the proceedings based thereon (!) (!) .
Procedural irregularities, such as the lack of notice to the complainant before dropping proceedings or acting without proper identification, violate mandatory legal requirements and undermine the validity of the proceedings (!) (!) .
The order of a Magistrate to dismiss or not take cognizance of a case, especially when the investigation discloses a prima facie case, is not sustainable. It is the Court’s duty to consider the case properly and proceed accordingly, ensuring that the rights of the victim are safeguarded (!) (!) .
The process of trial and procedure must be followed strictly, especially regarding the recording of statements, the commitment of cases to appropriate courts, and the proper evaluation of evidence. Any departure from these procedures can render orders invalid and require correction by higher courts (!) (!) .
The case was ultimately upheld in its procedural correctness, and the proceedings were directed to be completed expeditiously, with the court emphasizing that observations made are only for the present case and do not prejudice either party (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of procedural correctness, proper jurisdictional procedures, and cautious evaluation of evidence in criminal proceedings.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S.CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 9.1.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 458 of 1998, by way of which, the High Court has upheld the judgment and order dated 25.7.1998, passed by the Sessions Judge in Revision Petition No. 5 of 1998. By way of the said revisional order, the court had reversed the order of discharge of the appellant for the offences under Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) dated 25.3.1998, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows:
A. An FIR was lodged by one Pushpa on 22.3.1997, against the appellant stating that the appellant had raped her on 10.3.1997. In view thereof, an investigation ensued and the appellant was medically examined. The prosecutrix’s clothes were then also recovered and were sent for the preparation of FSL report. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 22.3.1997, wherein it was opined by the doctor that she was habitual to sexual intercourse, however, a final opinion regarding fresh intercourse would be given only after receipt of report from the Chemical Examiner.
B. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as `the Cr.P.C.’), by the Dy.S.P., wherein she narrated the incident as mentioned in the FIR, stating that she had been employed as a servant at the residence of one sister Durgi for the past six years. Close to the residence of sister Durgi, Dr. D.R. Parmar and his son Ajay Parmar were also residing. On the day of the said incident, Ajay Parmar called Pushpa, the prosecutrix home on the pretext that there was a telephone call for her. When she reached the residence of Ajay Parmar, she was raped by him and was restrained from going out for a long period of time and kept indoors without provision of any food or water. However, the next evening, she was pushed out surreptitiously from the back exit of the said house. She then tried to commit suicide but was saved by Prakash Sen and Vikram Sen and then, eventually, after a lapse of about 10 days, the complaint in question was handed over to the SP, Sirohi. Subsequently, she herself appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi on 9.4.1997, and moved an application before him stating that, although she had lodged an FIR under Section 376/342 IPC, the police was not investigating the case in a correct manner and, therefore, she wished to make her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, entertained the said application and disposed it of on the same day, i.e. 9.4.1997 by directing the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj, to record her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
D. In pursuance thereof, the prosecutrix appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj, which is at a far distance from Sirohi, on 9.4.1997 itself and handed over all the requisite papers to the Magistrate. After examining the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magiastrate, Sirohi, the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj, directed the public prosecutor to produce the Case Diary of the case at 4.00 P.M. on the same day.
E. As the public prosecutor could not produce the Case Diary at 4.00 P.M, the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj, directed the Public prosecutor to produce the Case Diary on 10.4.1997 at 10.00 A.M. The Case Diary was then produced before the said court on 10.4.1997 by the Public prosecutor. The Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded after being identified by the lawyer, to the effect that the said FIR lodged by her was false; in addition to which, the statement made by her under Section 161 Cr.P.C., before the Deputy Superintendent of Police was also false; and finally that no offence whatsoever was ever committed by the appellant, so far
No case in the provided list has been explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The list predominantly consists of citations to *Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan* (AIR 2013 SC 633 / (2012) 12 SCC 406) and related decisions, all of which are cited as authoritative or followed precedents. No entry contains language such as "overruled," "reversed," "bad law," or similar indicators of negative judicial treatment.
The vast majority of cases in the list cite *Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan* (AIR 2013 SC 633 / (2012) 12 SCC 406) as a precedent that was followed or relied upon. Examples:
[00100052630]: "this Court ... In AjayKumar Parmar v. ... Shri Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the High Court has erred in relying" — The context shows the case was relied upon, and the challenge is to the High Court's reliance, not a rejection of the precedent itself.
[00400047384]: "Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 633). Looking at the three signatures..." — cited as the basis for the Court's analysis.
[00400047914]: "See Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 633) However, it is held in this case that the opinion of the handwriting" — the "However" introduces the court's own holding; the Parmar case is still cited as the governing authority.
[00200046005]: "State of Rajasthan (2012(12) SCC 406 at page 415) at para-20. ... Kumar Parmer Vs. ... accused of FIR not chargesheeted to record so or even against the chargesheeted not to take cognizance as held by the Apex Court in Ajay" — citing the precedent as holding.
[00100056999]: "In fact this Court has held in Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 406 that appreciation of evidence at the stage of Section..." — directly citing as this Court's own holding.
[02100117160]: "Similarly, in Ajay Kumar Parmar -vs- State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 406 ... (Vide: State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2003 SC 1512; State of Orissa v. ... State of Orissa & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1103)." — cited alongside other followed cases.
[01100048222]: "SCC 495; Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 406; Dharampal v. ..." — listed as authorities.
[01500046446]: "Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Kerala (1999 Cri.L.J. 1488), State of Rajasthan v. Kesar Singh (1969 Cri.L.J. 1595), Roshan Lal Raina v. ... State of Rajasthan (AIR 1972 SC 1490), T. Ratnadas v." — listed as authorities.
[01800029542]: "See AIR 2013 SC 633 title Ajay Kumar Vs. State of 1680 Rajasthan." — cited as authority.
[01800030114]: "See ... AIR 2013 SC 633 Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... State of Rajasthan." — cited as authority.
[00400053481]: "Kumar Parmar v State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406. ... v State of Haryana, (2015) 3 SCC 138." — cited as authority.
[00900039521]: "Another authority relied by the appellant in (2012)12 SCC 406 (Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan) is also of little assistance of him, as in the said report the Court had itself compared the questioned document..." — the court acknowledges the appellant relied on it, and the court itself used it.
[02500080144]: "In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... The judmgent in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar (supra) relied by learned counsel for the petitioners defendants has no application..." — the court finds the reliance has "no application" to the present facts, but does not overrule the precedent; it merely finds it inapplicable.
[02500099941]: "In the case of Ajai Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 406, the Apex Court has held that:..." — cited as holding.
[00200050037]: "So also in Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 406 wherein it was held that it is permissible" — cited as holding.
[02200021776]: "To buttress his submission, he relies on the decisions of the apex Court and this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar vs State ... On a survey of earlier decisions, the apex Court in Ajay Kumar Parmar (supra) held:" — cited as apex Court holding.
[02500099954]: "Also, the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406 reiterated the principle laid down in the case of Jogendra Nahak" — cited as reiterating principle.
[01000007025]: "Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others (2011) 12 SCC 695, Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 406 and Rur Singh..." — listed as authorities.
[01000007355]: Same as above.
[00200050125]: "In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (referred supra) which I referred and in Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. ... State of Maharashtra (AIR 1981 SC 379), Sudhir Kumar v. ... State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 406) in paragraph 16 of the judgment, the Court held that it was not permissible" — cited as holding.
[00200053134]: "The judgment of the apex court reported in Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. ... State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406 by considering its ruling in Murari Lal vs. State of M.P." — cited as considering its ruling.
[01500045886]: "Kumar Parmar v. ... In State of Rajasthan v. ... State of Rajasthan (AIR 2013 SC 633)." — cited as authority.
[INDKER00000441079]: "Kumar Parmar v. ... InState of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh AIR 2013 SC 633)." — cited as authority.
[01100064293]: "He has also relied upon para No.28 of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... State of Rajasthan (2012) 12 SCC 406, which reads as under:-" — directly citing the judgment's paragraph.
[02100134394]: "In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan AIR 2013 SC 633 : (2012) 12 SCC 406 : LNIND 2012 SC 585, the..." — cited as authority.
[01000007620]: "Kumar Parmar v. ... In Ajay Kumar Parmar (supra), Their Lordships while delineating the scope of the provisions contained in Sections 207 to 209 of the..." — cited as authority.
[02100134457]: "Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2012 12 SCC 406. ... It will also be useful to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... Prem Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan,2016 SCCOnlineSC 923iv. Ammani Ammal Vs." — cited as authority.
[02500104031]: "The Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2013 AIR(SC) 633 has held that:-" — cited as holding.
[02700046107]: "The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. ... State of Rajasthan, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 406 has held as under:" — cited as holding.
[01800023945]: "Similarly, in later judgment passed by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... Similarly, in later judgment passed by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406, considering Debendra Nath Padhi's and" — cited as considering other cases.
[00400060888]: "State of Maharashtra and Others, (2004) 7 SCC 768(iii) Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. ... State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406(iv) Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. ... Similar view is expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Parmar (supra) in upholding" — cited as upholding.
[02700038116]: "The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. ... State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2013 SC 633 has held as under:-" — cited as holding.
[00800049698]: "The judgment rendered in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... In State of Rajasthan v. ... State of Rajasthan [Shankarlal v." — cited as judgment rendered.
[00500030057]: "The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2013 SC 633 has held as under:-" — cited as holding.
[00900045129]: "Krishna Dey, (1996) 2 CalLT 28 (HC)) [paragraph 10] and ( Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... In Ajay Kumar Parmar (supra), a learned Magistrate after taking note of the statement given by the prosecutrix in that case under ... State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406 ) [paragraph 24, 26, 27 and 28]." — cited as authority.
[00300047016]: "AIR 2012 SCW 5492 – Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan.3. ... This view of mine receives support from the following observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar (" — cited as supporting the court's view.
[02700039684]: "The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. ... State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2013 SC 633 has held as under:-" — cited as holding.
[01300034474]: "It would also be apt to note in the case titled Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2013 SC 633, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that "The..." — cited as holding.
[02500109211]: "Kumar Parmar Vs. ... State of Rajasthan and Another, (2016) 6 SCC 680 and ... State of Rajasthan and another, (2016) 6 SCC 680." — cited as authority.
[02100141320]: "In Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... Also the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2012) 12 SCC 406 (Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... State of Rajasthan), the relevant portion of which reads as follows:8." — cited as authority.
[01500051840]: "The said ratio followed in Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan, as under:" — explicitly states "ratio followed."
[01500051841]: "Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan, as under:"28. ... The above legal position was earlier held in para.28 of the decision reported in [AIR 2013 SC 633], Ajay" — explicitly states the legal position was earlier held.
[01400031047]: "Navaneethammal And Another reported in (2008) 4 SCC 530 and Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... The next case to which the learned counsel for the Appellant had referred is a judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar(supra). ... State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 406." — cited as authority.
[04300002533]: "vii) In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, the Courts while dealing with..." — cited as holding.
[00200055588]: "In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan [(2012) 12 SCC 406 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 405 : AIR 2013 SC 633< ... In the State (Delhi Administration) v." — cited as authority.
[02500111678]: "The Apex Court in case of Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... Kumar Parmar (supra). ... Further, neither the judgments of Minu Kumari (supra) nor Ajay Kumar Parmar (supra) were placed before the two judges Bench of the" — the court notes the precedent was not placed before a bench, but does not reject it as bad law.
[INDKER00000467159]: "Sudhakaran [1996 KHC 97]and Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan [2012 KHC 4540] and the decisions of a Division Bench of this Court inChandrasekharan Nair v< ... The State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1967 SC 1326)." — cited as authority.
[04200005575]: "In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406, the Apex Court held that, the Courts while dealing with handwriting..." — cited as holding.
[01500053808]: "Kumar Parmar v. ... However, a contrary view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendran Kumar Jain v. State Through Spl. ... State of Rajasthan [(2012) 12 SCC 406] observed that, as per the scheme of the Code, particularly Sections" — cites a contrary view in another case, but still cites Parmar as holding.
[01700066536]: "Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 4065. Vijay vs. ... Director, Central State Farm, Suratgarh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors." — cited alongside other cases.
[01300038873]: "State of Rajasthan, 2016 (4) SCC 96. ... State of Rajasthan, 2012 (12) SCC 406 and has submitted that the trial Court has committed error in comparing..." — cited as authority.
[01000011402]: "In the matter of Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the opinion of..." — cited as holding.
[02702011208]: "In the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (12) SCC 406:" — cited as authority.
[INDMP00000127799]: "In the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (12) SCC 406:" — cited as authority.
[00900095410]: "The learned counsel has also referred to the judicial decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. ... State of Rajasthan reported in" — cited as authority.
[INDCAL00000021020]: "The learned counsel has also referred to the judicial decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan, reported in" — cited as authority.
[02100155235]: "Haryana and others, (2001) 1 SCC 278(ii) Ajay Kumar Paramar v State of Rajasthatn ... Kumar Parmar, [Foot Note Supra (2)], notes that there is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting..." — cited as authority.
[INDKER00000450696]: "Support for the argument is sought to be drawn from the decision of the Apex Court inAjay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan [ 2024 (1) KHC 489 ]." — cited as authority.
[INDDEL00000156106]: "judgement/00100042883" target="_blank">(2008) 4 SCC 530) and Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan, (" — cited as authority.
[INDKAR00000329172]: "Relying on ratio in Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in reported in" — explicitly states "relying on ratio."
Several cases are cited in the same breath as Parmar for comparison or as having considered it:
[02100117160]: Cites Parmar alongside State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi and State of Orissa & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1103.
[02500109211]: Cites Parmar alongside (2016) 6 SCC 680 (Balveer Singh).
[00400052049]: "In Ajay K. Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406, the Supreme Court held that the evidence of an expert witness, though ... A very similar argument was taken before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sanat Kumar Das v." — Parmar is the main authority; Sanat Kumar Das is cited as a similar argument.
[04200000083]: Same as above.
[00300039186]: "In another ruling reported in AIR 2012 SCW 5492 between Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. ... State of Rajasthan wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 23 has opined..." — Parmar is the main authority.
[02500078089]: "In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406, held that where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of ... Supreme Court in State of Gujrat v." — Parmar is the main authority.
[02500088193]: Same as above.
[00300041073]: Lists Parmar among a series of cases including State of Haryana, Balveer Singh, etc. — grouped as authorities.
[02700065618]: "The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. ... State of U.P. ... Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. ... State of Rajasthan ... and S.M. Datta v." — Parmar is listed among a series of Supreme Court cases.
[02700038105]: Same as above.
[00500027475]: Same as [00100056999] — cites Parmar as this Court's holding.
[02200038252]: "Such view of this Court gets support from the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Parmal vs. ... State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 12 SCC 406." — cited as supporting this Court's view.
[00500030057]: "The Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar v. ... State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2013 SC 633 has held as under:-" — cited as holding.
[02500080144]: "The judmgent in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar (supra) relied by learned counsel for the petitioners defendants has no application..." — The court finds the precedent inapplicable to the facts, but does not overrule it.
[02500111678]: "Further, neither the judgments of Minu Kumari (supra) nor Ajay Kumar Parmar (supra) were placed before the two judges Bench of the..." — notes the precedent was not placed before a bench, but does not reject it as bad law.
[01500053808]: "However, a contrary view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendran Kumar Jain v. State Through Spl. ... State of Rajasthan [(2012) 12 SCC 406] observed that, as per the scheme of the Code..." — acknowledges a contrary view in Rajendran Kumar Jain, but still cites Parmar as observing the law.
No case in the provided list has an ambiguous or unclear treatment that would warrant placement in an uncertain category. Every citation of *Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan* (AIR 2013 SC 633 / (2012) 12 SCC 406) is either as a followed authority, a holding cited for its proposition, or a precedent found inapplicable on the facts. None of the other cases in the list (e.g., State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, etc.) are described with any negative treatment language in the provided excerpts.
**Source :** GARRE MALLIKHARJUNA RAO (D) BY LRS. VS NALABOTHU PUNNIAH - Supreme Court Hiralal VS Board of Revenue - Rajasthan Sheikh Anwar @ Sk. Anwar VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand Usha Shrikant Rege VS Gauri Gajanan Rege - Bombay Hoshang Pesi Hodiwala VS Bonny Behramshah Bhathena - Bombay Jayasri Singh VS State of A. P. rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A. P. Hyderabad - Andhra Pradesh JOGENDRA YADAV VS STATE OF BIHAR - Supreme Court Jogendra Yadav VS State of Bihar - Crimes State Through The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell VS learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur - Madras Shiwani VS State NCT of Delhi - Delhi Vijayakumar VS State of Kerala - Kerala S. P. Arunkumar VS State rep. by its The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Coimbatore - Madras Balveer Singh VS State of Rajasthan - Supreme Court Balveer Singh VS State of Rajasthan - Crimes SHIRISH POPATLAL SHAH VS ARUN POPATLAL SHAH - Bombay Shirish Popatlal Shah VS Arun Popatlal Shah - Current Civil Cases NASREEN PASHA VS MALIK AHMED - Karnataka HARISH CHAND VS ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADMIN. & REVENUE) DEORIA/D. D. C. DEORIA - Allahabad Mohd. Iqbal VS Board of Revenue U. P. At Allahabad. - Allahabad Dalip Singh Himral @ Dainy VS State of HP - Himachal Pradesh Kuldeep son of late Sh. Ram Lal VS State of HP - Himachal Pradesh Vinodrai Haridas Kotadia VS Gopaldas Haridas Kotadia - Bombay Manilal Chakraborty VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta PRAHLAD VS CHANDRA BHAN - Allahabad Yashwant Chaturvedi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad K. Raghuram Reddy VS State of Telangana - Andhra Pradesh Sundar P. Gowda, S/o Puttaswami VS D. Anusuya, W/o Manjunath Babu - Karnataka M. A. Alim VS Raghunath Sahu - Orissa Sandeep VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh Nandini Jadaun VS State of U. P. - Allahabad Dinesh Kumar Dubey, S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Dubey VS Ayodhya Dubey - Chhattisgarh Dinesh Kumar Dubey, S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Dubey VS Ayodhya Dubey (Died and deleted) - Chhattisgarh J. Muralidhar Goud VS State of Telangana rep by its Spl. Public Prosecutor for CBI - Andhra Pradesh Komara Subrahmanyam VS State of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh Pradeesh Chacko, S/o. Chackochan VS State of Kerala Represented by Dy. S. P of Police, Perumbavoor - Kerala PRADEESH CHACKO vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala Surinder Kumar VS Arvind Nath Pathak - Delhi Ramayee VS Kasthuri - Madras NIMISH AGARWAL VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh Shanmugam VS Inspector of Police, Ariyalur Police Station - Madras Prateek Gupta VS State of U. P. - Allahabad RAJA BHAIYA VS BADAL SINGH - Madhya Pradesh Siemens Enterprise Communications Pvt Ltd Now Known As Progility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. VS Central Bureau Of Investigation - Himachal Pradesh Manoj Bhargava VS State Of M. P. And Others - Madhya Pradesh Avneesh Harvansh Singh VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay Ku. Rampyari Ahirwar VS State Of M. P. and Another - Madhya Pradesh Amir Singh S/O Late Munna Singh VS State Of Bihar - Patna Rakesh Jain VS State of M. P. - Crimes A. T. Gooyee Enterprises VS Nand Lal Rathi - Calcutta Basanagouda S/o Devanagouda Patil VS Shashikant S/o Ranganath Gudi - Karnataka Ashok Ahirwar VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh Maheta Umed Kumar Mansukhlal VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat Ravi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad Divakaran Moorkath VS D. Manuel - Madras C. S. Unni Pillai VS Lalithakumari G, D/O. Jagadamma G - Kerala Sujith VS A. J. Joseph - Kerala Banwarilal Sharma, S/O Durga Prasad Sharma VS Kamala Devi Ajitsaria - Gauhati Katike Bheem Shankar VS T. Laxmi @ Punyavathi - Telangana Dindi Kiran Kumar VS Balaji Sankar Singh - Andhra Pradesh Sadab VS State of U. P. - Allahabad SRI.V.N.RAJESH, vs SRI.SIBU DEVASIA, - Kerala Balagam Nageswara Rao VS Rapolu Prabhakar - Current Civil Cases State Of Kerala VS N. R. Shaji, S/o. Babu Raj - Kerala Bhanwar Lal Bhadu, S/o. Kishna Ram VS Ved Prakash, S/o. Bhagirath Brahman - Rajasthan Dinubhai Bogabhai Solanki VS State of Gujarat - Gujarat Usha VS State of U. P. - Allahabad DASHRATH DAS vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh Dashrath Das, S/o Sahdev Das VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh Rahul Badgaiya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh Rahul Badgaiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh Sushma Chakraborty vs Malathy Roy Choudhary - Calcutta Sushma Chakraborty v. Smt. Malathy Roy Choudhary - Calcutta Andromeda Fashions Limited vs Samir Suri - Madras JESSY JOHNY vs ALEX M.ALEX - Kerala Narottam Prusty vs State Of Odisha - Orissa Mahanand Sharma vs Central Bureau Of Investigation - Delhi MR SHYAM PRASAD @ SHASHANK vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka State Of Orissa VS Debendra Nath Pandhi - Supreme Court Thiruvengada Pillai VS Navaneethammal - Supreme Court G. Someshwar Rao VS Samineni Nageshwar Rao - Supreme Court Ram Chandra VS State Of U. P. - Supreme Court Rukmini Narvekar VS Vijaya Satardekar - Supreme Court Ishwari Prasad Misra VS Mohammad Isa - Supreme Court Sanjay Gandhi VS Union Of India - Supreme Court Shashi Kumar Banerjee VS Subodh Kumar Banerjee - Supreme Court State Of Maharashtra VS Sukhdevsingh: Sukhdev Singh Alias Sukha - Supreme Court State VS Pali Ram - Supreme Court O. Bharathan VS K. Sudhakaran - Supreme Court S. M. S. Pharmaceuticals LTD. VS Neeta Bhalla - Supreme Court Jogendra Nahak VS State Of Orissa - Supreme Court Mahabir Singh: Sultan: Sis Pal: Ranbir Singh VS State Of Haryana - Supreme Court A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar VS George Mascrene - Supreme Court Bharat Parikh VS C. B. I. - Supreme Court Minu VS State Of Bihar - Supreme Court Murari Lal VS State Of M. P. - Supreme Court State Of Orissa VS Debendra Nath Pandhi - Supreme Court Bhagwant Singh VS Commissioner Of Police - Supreme Court Ram Pyaralal Shrivastava VS State Of Bihar - Supreme Court Fakhruddin VS State Of M. P. - Supreme Court Jagjit Singh VS State Of Haryana - Supreme Court
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
