<?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>2015 (3) TMI 1349 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280586</link>
    <description>At the stage of taking cognizance on a complaint and issuing process, the Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the complaint and recorded statements and be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The satisfaction required is only prima facie and need not be expressed in a detailed speaking order, but the order must still show enough indication that the material was considered and that the accused is made answerable before the court. Where the order contains no such indication, the High Court may intervene to prevent abuse of criminal process. The process order was therefore held unsustainable and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Apr 2022 16:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=570744" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1349 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280586</link>
      <description>At the stage of taking cognizance on a complaint and issuing process, the Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the complaint and recorded statements and be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The satisfaction required is only prima facie and need not be expressed in a detailed speaking order, but the order must still show enough indication that the material was considered and that the accused is made answerable before the court. Where the order contains no such indication, the High Court may intervene to prevent abuse of criminal process. The process order was therefore held unsustainable and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>