Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Hema Pathak Wife Of Sri Girja ... vs State Of U.P. And Mukul Pathak Son Of Late ... on 1 December, 2006

Subodh Pathak And Another vs State Of U.P.And Another on 21 December, 2016

The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the impugned remand order dated  9.5.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Court No. 4), Mathura in Revision No. 142 of 2015 (Smt. Hema Vs. State of U. P. and others) and to qush the impugned summoning order dated 17.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mathura in case no. 2418 of 2014(Hema Vs. Subodh Pathak and others), under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P. S. Raya, district Mathura. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ram Swarup Rajwade on 7 June, 2021

22. Similarly, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Ramlalan v. State of U.P.21, clearly held that if a law has been laid down by the High Court of the State, it is binding and ought to be complied 20 AIR 1961 SC 182 21 2012(111) AIC 372 17 by all the authorities concerned, whether it is executive or judicial and further it has been reiterated by the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Smt. Shanu Sharma v. State of U.P. and others22.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Dhrmendra Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 February, 2022

There are two aspects which needs to be considered. One is in term of the law laid down by Allahabad High Court in case of Hema Pathak (Smt.) vs. State of U.P.; 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 132 which provides that order of rejection of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation of the case does not operate as res-judicata, therefore, filing of complaint is not barred.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V Agarwal - Full Document

Narendra Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 15 May, 2018

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. provides that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as can be carried out by police officer. The fact of the matter is that order of rejection of application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation of the case does not operate as res judicata and filing of a complaint is not barred as has been held in the case of Smt. Hema Pathak Vs. State of U.P., 2007 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 132.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharmendra Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 15 May, 2018

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. provides that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as can be carried out by police officer. The fact of the matter is that order of rejection of application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for registration and investigation of the case does not operate as res judicata and filing of a complaint is not barred as has been held in the case of Smt. Hema Pathak Vs. State of U.P., 2007 Cr.L.J. (NOC) 132.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Sahu & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 November, 2022

6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the instant revision is as to whether after dismissal of an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C filed by the husband of the complainant, a second application on selfsame facts and circumstances is 3 maintainable at the instance of the wife of the original complainant. Having gone through the documents annexed with the instant revision, it is ascertained that the first application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C filed by the husband of the present opposite party No.2 was confined with the allegation of causing threat against the petitioners. However, subsequent application filed by the opposite party No.2 prima facie discloses offence under Sections 342/448/323/354/379/506/34 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Moreover, the learned Advocate for the petitioners is absolutely misconceived because an order of rejection of application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C does not operate as res judicata and filing of complaint on the selfsame incident is not barred. (See Hima Pathak vs. State of U.P : 2007 CrLJ (NOC) 132).
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

Dr.Hemshankar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 20 October, 2015

He is also heard on the question of interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is transferred from NSV Resource Centre, Gwalior. Nobody else has been posted at that place. Petitioner is posted to District Hospital, Morar on the post of Medical Officer. By taking this Court to an information obtained under the RTI, Annexure P-13, it is urged that total sanctioned posts of Medical Officers at said District Hospital are 13 whereas 17 Medical Officers are already working against 13 sanctioned posts. Thus, four officers are already surplus at said District Hospital and despite that petitioner has been posted at that place. By no stretch of imagination, this exercise can be said to be in an administrative exigency or in public 2 W.P.No.7234/2015 (Dr. Hem Shankar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.) interest. He submits that respondents have erred in not keeping the petitioner at NSV Resource Centre, Gwalior as per the policy.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1