TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Speeds Up Case, Criticizes Frequent Interference</h1> <h3>Ganesh Narayan Hegde Versus S. Bangarappa and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the case to proceed expeditiously, emphasizing the need for timely ... - Issues Involved:1. Quashing of charge framed u/s 500 IPC by the Magistrate.2. Revisional jurisdiction of Sessions Judge and High Court.3. Application of Section 482 CrPC by the High Court.4. Delay in proceedings and its impact on justice.Summary:1. Quashing of Charge Framed u/s 500 IPC by the Magistrate:The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents u/s 500 IPC. The Magistrate framed the charge after considering the evidence u/s 244 CrPC. The respondents challenged this in a Revision Petition, which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The High Court quashed the charge, stating that the lower courts did not apply their minds to the material on record and incorrectly exercised their jurisdiction.2. Revisional Jurisdiction of Sessions Judge and High Court:The Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision Petition, observing that the Magistrate had framed the charge based on a prima facie case. The High Court, however, quashed the charge, acting beyond its revisional jurisdiction and entering into the merits of the case, which was not appropriate at the interlocutory stage.3. Application of Section 482 CrPC by the High Court:The High Court quashed the charge u/s 482 CrPC, which is meant to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not act as a second Revisional Court under the garb of exercising inherent powers. The High Court erred in assessing the material and concluding that the complaint could not be proceeded with.4. Delay in Proceedings and Its Impact on Justice:The respondents argued that the matter should not proceed after twelve years. The Supreme Court noted that the complainant was not responsible for the delay and emphasized the need for expeditious proceedings. The Court criticized the frequent interference by superior courts at initial or interlocutory stages, which hampers the progress of criminal cases.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that the case proceed according to law and as expeditiously as possible.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
