Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L. Victoria Gowri, J
Ramesh Ramanathan – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Superindent of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature and scope of inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. factual background and grounds for challenging the fir. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. opposing contentions regarding civil dispute vs. criminal culpability. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. analysis of legal ingredients and the requirement of prima facie case. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 5. final order of quashing the fir. (Para 59 , 60) |
ORDER
Preface:
1.The inherent jurisdiction of this Court, though extraordinary in its amplitude, is not unbridled in its exercise. It is invoked not to conduct a miniature trial, nor to supplant the statutory process of investigation, but to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
2. Cases arising out of bitter civil disputes often assume a criminal complexion. Equally, criminal law cannot be stifled merely because the backdrop includes a civil contest. The Court must, therefore, carefully examine whether the criminal pr
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
