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

2014 Supreme(All) 3718

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE
Viresh @ Veere – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Shelendra Kumar
For the Opposite Party :Govt. Advocate

JUDGMENT

Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.: -

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants involve several intricate factual details and many disputed questions of fact related to the case. False implication due to malafide intention has been pleaded.

3. The law regarding the sufficiency of the material which may justify the summoning of the accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required.

4. The quashing of the charge sheet or the proceeding consequent thereupon, may be done only if the F.I.R. and the evidence or material collected by the Investigating Officer does not disclose any offence or if there is any legal bar which prohibits the proceedings on its basis. The Apex Court decisions in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State









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