Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Har Prasad VS Ranveer Singh...
Har Prasad VS Ranveer Singh - 2008 2 Supreme 216 : The order passed by the Magistrate was not based on the protest petition but was instead made in consideration of the police report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court upheld this finding, holding that the view was not infirm and that no interference was warranted. This directly addresses the query about a revision against an order passed on a protest petition, confirming that the order was not based on the protest petition and thus the revision was not maintainable on that ground.Checking relevance for Bal Manohar Jalan VS Sunil Paswan...
Bal Manohar Jalan VS Sunil Paswan - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 464 : The High Court cannot decide a criminal revision petition under Section 401 CrPC without issuing notice to the accused, as the accused has a right to be heard under Section 401(2) CrPC. In the case at hand, the High Court set aside the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and remanded the matter for proceeding in accordance with law, treating the protest-cum-complaint petition as a complaint. However, this order was found unsustainable because the accused were not given notice, violating their right to be heard. Therefore, the revision against the order passed on the protest petition is not permissible without notice to the accused.Checking relevance for Kaniz Fatima VS Commissioner Of Police...
Kaniz Fatima VS Commissioner Of Police - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 908 : The court has dismissed a review petition challenging an order related to a protest, stating that the order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration. The court emphasized that while the Constitution guarantees the right to protest and express dissent, this right is not absolute and cannot be exercised ''''anytime and everywhere.'''' Spontaneous protests are permissible, but prolonged protests that involve continued occupation of public places affecting the rights of others are not allowed. This principle forms the basis for the court''''s refusal to grant revision or review of the order passed on the protest petition.Checking relevance for SUBHASH SAHEBRAO DESHMUKH VS SATISH ATMARAM TALEKAR...
SUBHASH SAHEBRAO DESHMUKH VS SATISH ATMARAM TALEKAR - 2020 3 Supreme 641 : The court held that a revision petition preferred by the complainant against an order dismissing a complaint arising out of a protest petition under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is a valid legal remedy. The accused or person suspected of committing the crime has a right to be heard in such revision petition before the Sessions Judge or High Court, as mandated by Section 401(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, once the revisional court restores the complaint and sends it back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration, the accused has no right to participate in the proceedings or be heard by the Magistrate until the matter is considered for issuance of process. This principle was affirmed in the case of Manharibhai (supra), which overruled contrary judgments of the High Courts.Checking relevance for Shiv Shankar Singh VS State of Bihar...
Shiv Shankar Singh VS State of Bihar - 2011 8 Supreme 450 : A second Protest Petition can be entertained under exceptional circumstances, particularly when the first Protest Petition was filed without furnishing the full facts or particulars necessary to decide the case, and a fresh Protest Petition is filed prior to its entertainment by the court, providing complete details. Since a Protest Petition can be treated as a complaint under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., the maintainability of a second Protest Petition follows the same principles as a second complaint—i.e., it is permissible only if the first complaint was decided on insufficient material, without proper understanding of the nature of the complaint, or where new facts emerged after the first complaint was disposed of. In this case, the High Court erred in quashing the Magistrate’s order on the technical ground that the second Protest Petition was not maintainable, without considering that the first Protest Petition had been filed before the Final Report and was therefore not competent, and the second Protest Petition was filed with full details. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the High Court was set aside and the Magistrate’s order restored, affirming that such revision against an order on a protest petition is permissible under exceptional circumstances when the first petition was incomplete and the second provides complete information.
