<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1961 (11) TMI 63 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169748</link>
    <description>A second criminal complaint is not barred merely because an earlier complaint on the same allegations was dismissed under the Criminal Procedure Code; it may be entertained in exceptional cases where the earlier dismissal involved manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or genuinely new material. The complaint must be read as a whole, and where it discloses substantive offences such as forgery and use of forged documents, cognizance is not defeated simply because the pleading also refers to conspiracy. On the facts stated, prior consent was not required, and the second complaint was treated as a permissible fresh invocation of criminal process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2015 14:36:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (11) TMI 63 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169748</link>
      <description>A second criminal complaint is not barred merely because an earlier complaint on the same allegations was dismissed under the Criminal Procedure Code; it may be entertained in exceptional cases where the earlier dismissal involved manifest error, miscarriage of justice, or genuinely new material. The complaint must be read as a whole, and where it discloses substantive offences such as forgery and use of forged documents, cognizance is not defeated simply because the pleading also refers to conspiracy. On the facts stated, prior consent was not required, and the second complaint was treated as a permissible fresh invocation of criminal process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>