Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Chhattisgarh vs M/S Tata Teleservices Limited 7 ... on 15 November, 2018

State vs Tota Ram And Anr on 25 January, 2025

7. PW-1 Sh. Tilak Raj deposed that both the accused persons are his real brothers. He further stated that on FIR No. 432/2024 State Vs. Tota Ram and Anr. PS Sarai Rohilla, U/s. 109(1)/126(2)/238/3(5) BNS 2 of 12 27/07/2024, after consuming liquor, when he reached at his house, quarrel took place between him and accused persons at his house. Accused persons also used to stay on the second floor of his building. After the quarrel between him and the accused persons, he did not know what was happened thereafter. He further stated that his sister had called police. Police had taken him to Hindu Rao hospital where he was treated. He further stated that he did not know how he got injury on his body as he was not in his sense due to consumption of liquor. Thereafter, he got treated at RML hospital as his sister had taken him to RML hospital from Hindu Rao hospital. Police had taken his signatures on 28/07/2024. He further stated that he did not know what was recorded in the said statement. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Addl. PP for State as he was resiling from his earlier statement made before the police.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Hulasi Ram on 17 March, 2026

7.1. Since witness was resiling from his previous statement, Ld. APP for the State was allowed to cross-examine the witness. On his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the police. He was confronted with his statement under Section 161 CrPC, marked as Mark-A. The witness confirmed that he was on duty on bus no. UP25AT1209 on 10/11.02.2010 however, the witness denied the suggestion that JSI Dhanish Prasad produced the witness and the driver, Hulasi Ram, along with the bus and the details of tickets for 10/11.02.2010 (confronted with statements from Point A to Al of Mark-A). Witness Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 41/2010 State vs. Hulasi Ram Kumar Date: Page no. 6 of 14 2026.03.17 Jain 17:19:40 +0530 further denied that the driver, Hulasi Ram, left the spot with the bus after the accident, and that he learned about the incident later (confronted with statements from Point B to B1 of Mark-A). Attention of the witness was directed towards the accused, Hulasi Ram, and the witness stated that no such incident was caused by him. The witness denied the suggestions that he was deliberately not identifying the accused, that he was deposing falsely due to being compromised or won over by the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs Suresh@Tulli on 19 February, 2024

4. Prosecution examined the complainant Robhin as PW-1. He has deposed that on 28.11.2019, he had visited Nawada, Ashish Vatika, Mansaram Park to attend a marriage function of his friend Anil. He had verbal altercation with an unknown person. The witness stated that no incident took place at the spot. PW-1 was thereafter State v/s Suresh @ Tulli P age 2 of 5 Cr. Case No. 11245/2022 declared hostile at the request of Ld. APP for the State. Ld. APP for the State had thereafter cross-examined him. Ld. Defence counsel did not cross-examine the said witness despite being given an opportunity to do so.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna Kumar Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh 12 Sa/297/2009 ... on 15 July, 2020

8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.2146/2017 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Hemant Chandrakar and others) pending against the petitioners in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed and the petitioners are acquitted of the said charges.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Chandrakesh @ Guddu Chaurasia vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 July, 2021

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has sought for a suitable direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.11, Deoria, to consider and decide the Case No. 1618 of 2012 (State Vs. Chandrakesh @ Guddu Chaurasia and another), Case Crime No. 671 of 2012 under Sections 323, 325, 452 I.P.C. Police Station Rudrapur, District Deoria, within time stipulated by this Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R B Singh - Full Document

Mahendra Singh Gautam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2024

7. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the entire proceedings of Special Criminal Case No.325 of 2020 (State vs. Mahendra Singh Gautam) under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5A of SC/ST Act arising out of Case Crime No.72 of 2020, P.S. Pailani, District- Banda, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Banda, is hereby quashed and the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 is hereby set-aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document

Suman Kumari vs State Of U.P. on 22 April, 2025

5. As all the accused appeared before the court below, therefore, this court directs the court below to decide/conclude the trial of Criminal Case No. 2635 of 2020 (State vs. Baliram Gautam and others) under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Golauhaura, District Siddharth Nagar, as expeditiously as possible, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to any of the party.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next