Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for MANHARIBHAI MULJIBHAI KAKADIA VS SHAILESHBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL...
2012 7 Supreme 257 : The judgment in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi [(1976) 3 SCC 736] is cited in the legal document as a precedent relied upon in the context of the scope of interference in revision against the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Specifically, the document refers to this case in support of the proposition that the accused or suspect has no right of hearing under Section 401(2) of the CrPC in a revision petition challenging the dismissal of a complaint at a pre-cognizance stage. This directly addresses the user''''s query about Kerala High Court judgments where Nagawwa v. Veeranna is referred regarding the scope of interference in revision against the dismissal of a complaint. Although the cited judgment is from the Supreme Court, its reference in the context of revision proceedings and the scope of interference in such cases is relevant to the legal principle being examined, and the document confirms that this case is cited in discussions concerning the right of hearing in revision petitions challenging dismissal of complaints under Section 203.Checking relevance for Vikram Johar VS State of Uttar Pradesh...
2019 0 Supreme(SC) 496 : The judgment in Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736, is cited in the document to support the principle that once a Magistrate exercises discretion in forming an opinion that there are grounds for proceeding against an accused, higher courts cannot substitute their own discretion for that of the Magistrate. This principle is directly relevant to the scope of interference in revision against the dismissal of a complaint, particularly under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The citation confirms that the Kerala High Court has referred to Nagawwa v. Veeranna in the context of limiting judicial interference in revision when the Magistrate has prima facie found sufficient grounds to proceed, thereby affirming the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.Checking relevance for Shakson Belthissor VS State of Kerala...
2009 5 Supreme 281 : The document references Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi (1976) 3 SCC 736 in the context of the scope of interference in revision against the dismissal of a complaint. It specifically cites the Supreme Court''''s holding in that case that a Magistrate''''s order for issuing process against an accused can be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC if the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would not result in the conviction of the accused. This directly addresses the scope of judicial interference in revision against the dismissal of a complaint, particularly in cases where the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. The document uses Nagawwa v. Veeranna as a foundational precedent to support the principle that quashing of a complaint or charge sheet is permissible only when the complaint fails to disclose an offence or is an abuse of process, which is precisely the legal issue the user is inquiring about in the context of Kerala High Court judgments.Checking relevance for V. V. S. Rama Sharma VS State of U. P. ...
2009 3 Supreme 251 : The judgment in Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736, is cited in the legal document as authority for the scope of interference in revision against the dismissal of a complaint. Specifically, it establishes that the Magistrate must be satisfied that the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately result in the conviction of the accused. The document outlines four circumstances under which the order issuing process can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC: (1) where the complaint makes out no case against the accused; (2) where the allegations are patently absurd or inherently improbable; (3) where the Magistrate''''s discretion is capricious or arbitrary; and (4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects such as lack of sanction or absence of a legally competent complainant. This directly addresses the user’s query regarding Kerala High Court judgments referring to Nagawwa v. Veeranna in the context of the scope of interference in revision against the dismissal of a complaint.Checking relevance for Bhushan Kumar VS State (Nct of Delhi)...
2012 2 Supreme 699 : The judgment in Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736 is cited in the document as authority for the proposition that the Magistrate is not required to enter into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case when deciding whether to issue summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It further establishes that the Magistrate has an undoubted discretion in the matter, which must be judicially exercised, and that once this discretion is exercised, the High Court (or Supreme Court) cannot substitute its own discretion or re-examine the case on merits to determine whether the allegations, if proved, would lead to conviction. This principle directly informs the scope of interference by the High Court in revision against the dismissal of a complaint, particularly in the context of summoning orders. The cited case is thus relevant to the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters.
