Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr on 10 January, 2017

Neelam @ Leela vs State on 7 April, 2018

5.) In view of the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and on perusing the material on record and Trial court record, I am of the view that so far as contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent that present petition is not maintainable, same is unfounded due to the reason that by dismissing or allowing an application U/s 156(3) CrPC, it amounts to adjudication of a valuable right in favour of accused or the complainant. Such order are in the nature of final order terminating the proceedings which would be revisable under the revisional power of Sessions Court or the Hon'ble High Court. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble High court Nishu Wadhwa Vs. Sidharth Wadhwa Anr. W.P. (CRL.) 1253/2016 where it was held that:-
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kunwar Singh vs ) State Of Nctr Of Delhi (Proforma Party) on 8 January, 2018

10.  Firstly,   I   shall   deal   with   the   legal   objection   with regard to the maintainability of the revision petition.  HMJ Mukta Gupta in  Nishu Wadhwa Vs. Siddharth Wadhwa and Anr., W.P.(CRL)   1253/2016   and   Crl.   M.A.   No.   6591/2016   (Stay) decided on 10.01.2017 has considered this issue in detail and after   dealing   with   various   conflicting   judgements   on   the   issue has held in para 13 of the judgement as under: ­
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Vinod Kumar Pathak vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 11 May, 2018

5. It is borne out from the revision petition itself that in pursuance to direction given by ld. MM, FIR No.87/18 has already been registered by police. In view of the same submissions were invited regarding Page 5 of 7 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.99/2018 purpose of filing this revision petition, especially when it was conceded by ld. counsel that this court cannot quash the FIR. Ld. counsel for petitioners argued that revision petition is maintainable and it is so held by High Court of Delhi in Nishu Wadhwa v. Siddharth Wadhwa, 236 (2017) DLT 612. He further submitted that in the revisional jurisdiction this court may give direction to the trial court to rehear the parties and to pass appropriate order.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Criminal Revision No. 204613/16 vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 24 April, 2018

13. Respondent No. 2 to 4 had taken an objection that the present revision   petition   is   not   maintainable   as   no   revision   petition   is maintainable against the order allowing the application under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. However the said submission is unsustainable in view of law laid down in Nishu Wadhwa versus Siddharth Wadhwa and Ors, W.P. (Crl) 1253/2016 and Crl. M.A.No. 6591/2016 where it has been categorically held that an order dismissing or allowing an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and revision petition against the same is maintainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karnail Singh & Ors vs Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr on 7 August, 2018

Mr. Sukant Gupta, learned counsel appearing for U.T., Chandigarh submits that impugned order is a final order and not the interlocutory order and revision was maintainable. The petitioners were not accused at that time and no notice was required to be served upon them. He has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of HDFC Securities Ltd. and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2017 (1) RCR (Criminal) 207, of Allahabad High Court in the cases of Ramwati and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2008 (3) Cri.CC 952, Jagannath Verma and others Vs. State of U.P. and another 2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) 414, of Delhi High Court in the case of Nishu Wadhwa Vs. Siddharth Wadhwa and another 2017 (1) RCR (Criminal) 704, of Bombay High Court in the cases of State of Goa Vs. Atish Premanand L. Mandrekar 2015 (37) RCR (Criminal) 33, Pradeep Ramchandra Velip Vs. The State of Goa and others 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 4494, Avinash Trimbakrao Dhondage Vs. State of Maharashtra 2016 CRI.L.J. (NOC) 102 (BOM), and of Gauhati High Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Andrew Yule and Company Ltd. and others 2007 CriLJ 3915, in support of his contentions.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - D Chaudhary - Full Document

Sh. Ashish Kumar Gautam vs Smt. Ramwati Devi & Ors on 8 June, 2018

10.Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 also submitted that the petitioner has no right to file the present revision petition as no notice was issued to them by Ld. MM in pursuance to  the complaint  filed  by  respondent no.1. It is well settled law that the party aggrieved with the order can assailed the order of registration of FIR passed by Ld. MM u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. In this regard this court is supported with the case law reported CR No.89/2018                     Ashish Kumar Gautam vs Ramwati & Ors                   3 as "2017 (236) DLT 612 Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr".
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Iqbal Umar Khan vs Smt. Ramwati Devi & Ors on 8 June, 2018

10.Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 also submitted that the petitioner has no right to file the present revision petition as no notice was issued to them by Ld. MM in pursuance to  the complaint  filed  by  respondent no.1. It is well settled law that the party aggrieved with the order can assailed the order of registration of FIR passed by Ld. MM u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. In this regard this court is supported with the case law reported CR No.87/2018                     Iqbal Umar Khan vs Ramwati & Ors                   3 as "2017 (236) DLT 612 Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr".
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Anuj Kumar vs Smt. Ramwati Devi & Ors on 8 June, 2018

10.Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 also submitted that the petitioner has no right to file the present revision petition as no notice was issued to them by Ld. MM in pursuance to  the complaint  filed  by  respondent no.1. It is well settled law that the party aggrieved with the order can assailed the order of registration of FIR passed by Ld. MM u/s 156(3). Cr.P.C. In this regard this court is supported with the case law reported CR No.90/2018                     Sh. Anju Kumar  vs Ramwati & Ors                   3 as "2017 (236) DLT 612 Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr".
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next