Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Gulshan Kapoor And Ors vs State Of Raj Asthan And Anr on 25 August, 2011

Hari Mohan And Ors vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp And Anr on 1 July, 2013

In the case of Gulshan Kapoor & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [RLW 2011 (4) Raj. 3520], this court, too, has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in order to conclude that the court where the consequence of an offence follow would have the jurisdiction to try the case. In this case also the parties were married and lived in Delhi. But due to the atrocities committed by the husband, Gulshan Kapoor, the wife, returned back to her parental home at Atalbandh, District Bharatpur. Subsequently she lodged a FIR at Police Station Atalbandh (Bharatpur). The police, after investigation, submitted a chargesheet against Gulshan Kapoor and others. The learned trial court took cognizance. Gulshan Kapoor and others filed an application under Section 177 Cr.PC. wherein they raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the court. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed their application. Hence, Gulshan Kapoor and others approached this Court. But even this Court, while relying on Sections 177, 178, 179 and 181 Cr.P.C. and upon the case laws cites above, clearly held that the courts where the consequences of offence follow would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

Vikas Sawlani vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 31 May, 2013

In the case of Gulshan Kapoor & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [RLW 2011(4) Raj. 3520], this court, too, has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in order to conclude that the court where the consequence of an offence follow would have the jurisdiction to try the case. In this case also the parties were married and lived in Delhi. But due to the atrocities committed by the husband, Gulshan Kapoor, the wife, returned back to her parental home at Atalbandh, District Bharatpur. Subsequently she lodged a FIR at Police Station Atalbandh (Bharatpur). The police, after investigation, submitted a chargesheet against Gulshan Kapoor and others. The learned trial court took cognizance. Gulshan Kapoor and others filed an application under Section 177 Cr.PC. wherein they raised the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the court. However, the learned Magistrate dismissd their application. Hence, Gulshan Kapoor and others approached this court. But even this court, while relying on Sections 177, 178, 179 and 181 Cr.P.C. and upon the case laws cites above, clearly held that the courts where the consequences of offence follow would have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

Ranjeet Singh Alias Ranveer Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand on 10 July, 2017

26. In 2011 CRI. L.J. 4864, in the case of "Gulshan Kapoor & others vs. State of Rajasthan & another", learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court has held that wife was left at her father's place and Stridhan also was not returned on demand when made. As per Section 179, anything that happened as a consequence of offence may be inquired or tried by Court in whose jurisdiction such thing happened, the offence of continuing nature. Learned Single Judge has held as under: -
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lokendra Singh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 28 May, 2013

Mr. Ashindra Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. would clearly reveals that after her marriage the complainant-respondent had gone to Sabalgarh, District Murena [M.P.]. According to her, all the acts of cruelties had taken place in Sabalgarh. Therefore, neither the Police Station, Atru nor the Courts of Judicial Magistrate, Atru have the territorial jurisdiction to investigate, and to try the case respectively. Hence, the cognizance order dated 02.04.2010 is patently illegal. Lastly, the continuation of the criminal proceedings before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate tantamounts to an abuse of the process of Court, and an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court must not only quash the cognizance order, but also quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baran. The learned counsel has also relied on the following decisions : in the cases of Gulshan Kapoor & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2011 (4) RLW 3520 (Raj.) 3520, Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. A.I.r. 2011 S.C. 1674, Satvinder Kaur Vs. State [Govt. of NCT of Delhi] and Another (1999) 8 SCC 728, State of M.P. Vs. Suresh Kaushal and Another (2003) 11 SCC 126 and in the case of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt) Vs.Prashant Kumar Mukherjee, (1997) 5 SCC 30.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R S Chauhan - Full Document
1