Back
S.R.SINGH
KAILASH CHAUDHARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
( 1 ) CRIMINAL Misc. Application on hand is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. filed for quashing the complaint dated 8-12-92 (Annexure 1) instituted by respondent No. 2, namely, Ramji Chaudhary. The quashing of the complaint is sought inter alia, on the grounds that the complaint is baseless, vexatious and concocted and that it discloses no offence against the applicants under Sections 147 / 452 / 323 / 504 / 506, I. P. C. It is alleged in the application that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicants under Section 190 read with Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by means of the order dated 11-2-93 in a mechanical manner without application of mind and that the issue of process by the learned Magistrate in the instant case amounts to an abuse of the process of law / Court.
( 2 ) SRI R. C. Yadav holding brief of Sri K. S. Kushwaha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant urged that the complaint in the instant case is false, frivolous and vexatious besides being baseless and has been instituted solely with a view to harassing and harrowing the applicants. The learned Magistrate issued the process under
NAZEER AHMAD VS STATE OF U. P. - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 410: Distinguished. Explicitly states "The facts of K. K. Mathew are quite distinguishable" and "the decision of this Court in Kailash Chaudhari, (1994 All LJ 174) which was rendered in a different fact situation," indicating it is not followed due to factual differences and limited applicability.
[ASAD KHAN
VS STATE OF U P
1994 0 Supreme(All) 631](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500037895): Followed. States "In view of the law as laid down in Kailash Chaudhari," indicating acceptance and application of the precedent.
[G C DATTA ROY
VS STATE OF U P
1994 0 Supreme(All) 741](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500037724): Followed. States "This will be in tune with the holding in the case of Kailash Chaudhary," showing alignment and reliance.
MADAN SEN SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1995 0 Supreme(All) 306: Cited positively. Refers to "IN Kailash Chaudharis case (supra) a number of rulings were..." and considers it alongside other cases, implying supportive treatment.
S. SUBRAMANIUM VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1995 0 Supreme(All) 340: Cited in support. States "In support of his view he has stressed upon a decision... in the case of Kailash Chaudhary," indicating reliance.
State VS P. C. Aggarwal - 1997 0 Supreme(P&H) 905: Followed. States "The same view prevailed with the Allahabad High Court in the case of Kailash Chaudhari," showing agreement with its view.
HAFEEZ ULLAH KHAN VS SPECIAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER - 1998 0 Supreme(All) 428: Cited positively. Refers to "in Kailash Chaudhary and others v. State of U...." in a neutral to supportive context without negative treatment.
VIJAI TIWARI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1998 0 Supreme(All) 660: Cited (observations used). States "On the basis of some observations made in the case of Kailash Choudhary," indicating reliance on its language.
SWARN MANJAL VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2000 0 Supreme(All) 980: Cited and relied upon. States "was relied on in the case of Kailash Chaudhary," showing positive treatment.
MAHENDRA PAL SHARMA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2002 0 Supreme(All) 1349: Cited with reference. Provides citation details "(1993) 3 All Cri 664 : (1994 All LJ 174 )" in context suggesting ongoing relevance.
VIJAI VS STATE OF U. P - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2745: Referenced as holding. States "the conclusion drawn in 1993 (30) All Cri C 664 (665) : 1994 All LJ 174 : 1994 Cri LJ 67, Kailash," treating it as authoritative.
[Vijai
VS State of U. P. - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2735](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500042875): Referenced as holding. Mirrors VIJAI VS STATE OF U. P - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2745 with identical language: "the conclusion drawn in 1993 (30) All Cri C 664 (665): 1994 All LJ 174 : 1994 Cri LJ 67, Kailash," indicating positive reliance.
R. P. Kapur VS State Of Punjab - 1960 0 Supreme(SC) 94: States a general principle on inherent powers under Section 561-A CrPC. No explicit treatment indicators like followed/distinguished; appears as standalone legal proposition.
Mrs. Dhanalakshmi VS R. Prasanna Kumar - Crimes (1989): States a general principle on taking cognizance. No treatment indicators; presented as independent rule.
[MAHENDRA KUMAR MODI
VS RAM KUMAR SHARMA
1990 0 Supreme(All) 718](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500032013): States a general principle on complaint requirements. No treatment indicators.
K. M. Mathew VS State of Kerala - Crimes (1991): States a general principle on magistrate's power. No treatment indicators.
RANJEET SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1999 0 Supreme(All) 1776: Treatment unclear. Text is fragmentary ("State of U. ... State of U. ... State of A.") with no discernible keywords or context indicating specific treatment like followed or distinguished.
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
