Back
PANKAJ MITHAL, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Sadiq B. Hanchinmani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
The legal document discusses the circumstances under which a Magistrate can direct a police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It emphasizes that such a direction must be based on sufficient material and proper application of judicial mind, and it should not be issued arbitrarily or without proper grounds (!) (!) (!) .
The judgment clarifies that even if an injunction or other court order is later set aside, the consequences of breaches or violations that occurred while the order was in effect can still be enforced against the violator (!) . This underscores the importance of respecting court orders and the potential legal repercussions for violations during their subsistence, regardless of subsequent legal developments.
Furthermore, the decision highlights that a private complaint disclosing cognizable offences provides a valid basis for the Magistrate to refer the matter for police investigation, provided there is enough prima facie material to justify such action (!) . The Court stresses that the police have a statutory obligation to investigate genuine complaints of cognizable offences, and the High Court should exercise caution before interfering with ongoing investigations unless there are clear reasons to do so (!) (!) .
In the case at hand, the Court found that the Magistrate had correctly referred the matter for investigation based on the available material, including allegations of forgery, fabrication, and conspiracy related to forged documents and fake stamp papers (!) (!) . The Court also notes that irregularities in procedure, such as the Magistrate’s order to investigate, do not necessarily vitiate proceedings if done in good faith and based on credible material (!) .
Finally, the judgment underscores that the Court's role in quashing or staying investigations should be exercised with caution, ensuring that the statutory obligation of the police to investigate genuine offences is not unduly hindered, especially when the allegations are substantiated by prima facie evidence (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted in both petitions.
3. The instant criminal appeals, at the instance of the complainant, seek to assail the Final Judgments and Orders dated 18.11.2021 in CRLP No.100651/2018 [2021:KHC-D:90] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second Impugned Order’) and dated 24.07.2019 in CRLP No.100549/2018 [2019:KHC-D:5908] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Impugned Order’) passed by two learned Single Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, Bench at Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the High Court allowed the accused-private respondents’ petitions under Section 482[1 ‘482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.— Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.’] of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’), consequently quashing the Order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III Court, Belagavi (hereinafter referr
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
