Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, CJI., D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.
Manoj Kumar - Petitioners
Versus
Champa Devi - Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10137 of 2015
Decided on : 06-04-2017
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Interpretation and Application
Fact of the Case:
The court reviewed the impugned order and found it to be based on consistent interpretations of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code as established in previous court decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no justification to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the special leave petition.
Issues:
Ratio Decidendi: The consistent interpretation of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the court over the last two decades influenced the decision not to interfere with the impugned order.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed.
Key Points: - The court dismissed the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution (!) . - The impugned order is based on consistent interpretations of Section 125 CrPC as established by prior decisions over the last two decades (!) (!) . - The decision references Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta (1995) 5 SCC 299 as part of the basis for not interfering (!) . - The judgment notes no justification to interfere with the impugned order, leading to dismissal of the petition (!) . - Advocates for the petitioner and respondent are listed, indicating representation in the proceedings (!) . - The order being reviewed is Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi, Cr. MMO No. 230 of 2014, dated 9.4.2015 (H.P.) (!) . - The final decision states: "The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed" (!) .
ORDER :
1. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at some length.
2. Having perused the impugned order [Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi, Cr. MMO No. 230 of 2014. D/d. 9.4.2015 (H.P.)], we are satisfied, that the same is based on the two decisions rendered by this Court, firstly, Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299, and secondly, Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.) and others, 2000(3) SCC 180. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the explanation under sub-section (1) thereof, has been consistently interpreted by this Court, for the last two decades. The aforesaid consistent view has been followed by the High Court while passing the impugned order.
3. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no justification whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
