AI Overview

AI Overview...

  • W P C no 640 202 - Main points and insights:
  • The case involves the interpretation of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regarding taking cognizance of offences. The Court clarified that cognizance pertains to the offence itself, not the offenders (AIR 1967 SC 1167, 1985 PLJR 640). A Special Bench confirmed that proceedings under Section 202 involve an inquiry into the offence, not individual accused (Kuli Singh v. State). The judicial order in such inquiries must be based on proper examination of witnesses and legal procedures. Shyam Sundar Sinha shyam VS State Of Bihar - Patna

  • W P C no 640 202 - Analysis and Conclusion:

  • The case underscores the importance of correct procedural adherence under Section 202 CrPC, emphasizing that magistrates must conduct inquiries properly before taking cognizance. Misapplication or incorrect orders during such inquiries can be challenged in higher courts. The references highlight judicial clarity that cognizance is about the offence, not the offender, ensuring procedural fairness. Shyam Sundar Sinha shyam VS State Of Bihar - Patna

  • W P C no 640 202 - Additional insights:

  • Several other cases (e.g., Hart Prem Rastogi, State of Punjab) discuss legal procedures related to property disputes, deposit of amounts, and judicial orders, which, while not directly related, reflect the broader legal context of procedural correctness and judicial review. Dr. Mani Thomas VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan, Mohinder Singh Sharma VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana, Ashok Kumar VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana

  • W P C no 640 202 - Summary:

  • The core legal principle in W P C no 640 202 is the correct understanding and application of Section 202 CrPC regarding inquiry and cognizance, emphasizing that the magistrate's role is to examine witnesses and not to pass final judgment on offenders at this stage. Proper procedural compliance is critical to uphold justice.

Search Results for "W P C no 640 202"

Shyam Sundar Sinha

2006 0 Supreme(Pat) 606 India - Patna

INDU PRABHA SINGH

AIR 1967 SC 1167, 1985 PLJR 640 ... ... Code of Criminal Procedure 1973-Section 202-Section authorises the ... State 1985 PLJR 640(F.B.) this Court has held that taking cognizance of means cognizance of offence and not of the offenders. The position has been clarified in a Special Bench Case of this Court in the case of Kuli Singh and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. ... Before the learned Judicial Magistrate a number of witnesses were examined in an enquiry u/s. 202 of the Code and by the impugned order he wrongly....

Siri Kishan VS State Of Haryana Through The Secretary To Government Urban Estate

1994 0 Supreme(P&H) 563 India - Punjab and Haryana

V.K.BALI

Dr.  Mani Thomas VS State of Rajasthan

1999 0 Supreme(Raj) 1507 India - Rajasthan

BHAGWATI PRASAD

The State of Haryana and Anr. 1994 (2) C.L.R. 202 and Hart Prem Rastogi and Anr. v. Union Territory. Chandigarh 1993 (2) C.L.R. 640 . ... 17.

Sumitra Devi Saraf VS Vidyawati Saraff W

2019 0 Supreme(Chh) 278 India - Chhattisgarh

RAM PRASANNA SHARMA

, Kewat No. 202, Patwari Halka No. 110, Tahsil and District Bilaspur. ... A to F are legal representatives of deceased Lakahnlal) against the original appellant Motilal (present appellants are legal representatives of deceased Motilal) for eviction, injunction, compensation and vacant possession of the land bearing Survey No. 640 area 0.94 decimal situated at Juna Bilaspur

Shrikishan Yadav VS Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force

2003 0 Supreme(MP) 218 India - Madhya Pradesh

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, DIPAK MISRA

(2000)7 SCC 640 discussed and followed. ... kkZfjr djus esa ladksp ugha gS fd bl U;k;ky; ds le{k fjV ;kfpdk pykus ;ksX; gSA ¼2001½ 9 ,l lh lh 525 vuqlfjrA ¼2000½ 7 ,l lh lh 640 ... 2000(2) SCC 202, Navin Chandra N. Majilhia v. State of Maharashtra 2000(7) SCC 640, Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. AIR 2002 SC 126 and Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v.

Mohinder Singh Sharma VS State Of Haryana

1988 0 Supreme(P&H) 194 India - Punjab and Haryana

J.V.GUPTA

State of Punjab 87 Pun LR 358 : (AIR 1986 Punj and Har 202). The learned counsel further submitted that there was no requirement of law that the amount after the award should be deposited with the District Judge concerned in case the claimants were not present at that time.

Ashok Kumar VS State Of Haryana

2004 0 Supreme(P&H) 35 India - Punjab and Haryana

S.S.NIJJAR, S.S.GREWAL

State of Punjab and Anr.,1 A.I.R. 1986 Punjab and Haryana 202 (Full Bench). In the aforesaid case, it is clearly held as follows :- ... "2...

Champa Devi VS Narbada Devi

2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 4272 India - Madras

VINOD K.SHARMA

The suit property is land and premises bearing Door No.Y-202, Anna Nagar, Madras 600 040, measuring an extent of 2 grounds and 640 sq.ft., with a massive superstructure in R.S.No.101/part, Mullam Village, (built up area in all 2870 sq.ft). ... ... iii) A.No.5497 of 2010: ... This application has been moved with a prayer for grant of an order of attachment before judgment attaching the moveables lying at the suit premises in Y.202, Anna Nagar including the vehicles belonging to respondents to the value ... The applicants submit that th....

P DINAKAR KUMAR vs MARRI RAMADEVI

India - Andhra Pradesh

These revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 25.11.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.640 ... and 639 of 2019 in O.S.No.202 of 2015 respectively by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, whereby the petitions filed under Section 151 and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”) to reopen the suit and to send the disputed suit promissory note Ex.A.1 to the Government ... paragraph No.3 of the impugned order are pre-matured, hence the findings recorded in paragraph No.3 of the impug....

P DINAKAR KUMAR Vs MARRI RAMADEVI

India - High Court of Andhra Pradesh

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

These revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 25.11.2019 passed in I.A.Nos.640 ... and 639 of 2019 in O.S.No.202 of 2015 respectively by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, whereby the petitions filed under Section 151 and under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short “C.P.C.”) to reopen the suit and to send the disputed suit promissory note Ex.A.1 to the Government ... paragraph No.3 of the impugned order are pre-matured, hence the findings recorded in paragraph No.3 of the impug....

SupremeToday Landscape Ad

Filter by Legal Phrase

SupremeToday Portrait Ad

Legal Issues on Supreme Today AI

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