<?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>2016 (4) TMI 1464 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313087</link>
    <description>Once a cognizance order has attained finality, fresh applications before the Magistrate cannot be used to reopen the same objections under a general liberty to raise other defences later. The text also states that the criminal procedure scheme does not permit re-investigation or indefinite piecemeal reservation of investigation against selected accused; only further investigation on the statutory footing is contemplated, and exceptional directions for de novo investigation lie with higher courts. On the stated facts, the police report, witness statements and case-diary material were sufficient for cognizance, and no jurisdictional illegality was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:14:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747951" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1464 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313087</link>
      <description>Once a cognizance order has attained finality, fresh applications before the Magistrate cannot be used to reopen the same objections under a general liberty to raise other defences later. The text also states that the criminal procedure scheme does not permit re-investigation or indefinite piecemeal reservation of investigation against selected accused; only further investigation on the statutory footing is contemplated, and exceptional directions for de novo investigation lie with higher courts. On the stated facts, the police report, witness statements and case-diary material were sufficient for cognizance, and no jurisdictional illegality was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>