<?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>2017 (8) TMI 1636 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294627</link>
    <description>In alleged impersonation and fraud arising from a court proceeding, the Kerala HC noted that Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulate cognizance and the court&#039;s complaint procedure, but do not prevent police investigation where the FIR discloses cognizable offences. Because the earlier revisional order had already directed a full police investigation and had not been challenged, the materials collected could lawfully assist the court in deciding whether to file its own complaint after enquiry. The procedure adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was therefore not illegal, and the request to quash the FIR was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:02:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642510" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1636 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294627</link>
      <description>In alleged impersonation and fraud arising from a court proceeding, the Kerala HC noted that Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulate cognizance and the court&#039;s complaint procedure, but do not prevent police investigation where the FIR discloses cognizable offences. Because the earlier revisional order had already directed a full police investigation and had not been challenged, the materials collected could lawfully assist the court in deciding whether to file its own complaint after enquiry. The procedure adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was therefore not illegal, and the request to quash the FIR was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>