SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(Gau) 72

K.LAHIRI
RAMAUTAR CHOUKHANY – Appellant
Versus
HARI RAM TODI – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

The allegations contained in the complaint and the initial deposition of the complainant, even if they are taken at their face value, and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner claims that the case insofar as he is concerned is liable to be quashed under Section 482, Criminal P.C. for short "the Code". This is the sole contention of the petitioner.

2. The contours of the jurisdiction of the High Court when it exercises its inherent powers under Section 482 of "the Code" have been set out by the Supreme Court amongst other decisions, in R.P. Kapur; AIR 1960 SC 866 : (1960 Cri LJ 1239), Nagawwa; AIR 1976 SC 1947 : (1976 Cri LJ 1533), Madhu Limaye; AIR 1978 SC 47 : (1978 Cri LJ 165) and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, AIR 1977 SC 1489 : (1977 Cri LJ 1125).

3. In R.P. Kapur (supra) three categories of cases have been referred which are illustrative in nature but not exhaustive, where the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a proceeding. One amongst them is that if the allegations in the complaint, even if they are accepted at their face value, do not constitute the offence a























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top