Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 17 December, 2012

Jaspal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 February, 2018

A Division Bench of this Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) 504 considered a case where immediately after the conviction of the prisoner in the said case he applied for emergency release for four weeks on account of illness of his mother who was advised operations. It was held that the prisoner was entitled to emergency release on parole under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. Proviso to Rule 3 (2) which provides that no application shall be processed by the Superintendent of Jail, unless the prisoner had maintained good conduct after his conviction for at least four months in jail, was held to be a procedural provision. It was directory in nature and not mandatory and the provisions of the Act are substantive provision which would prevail over the procedural provisions of the Rules.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D Chaudhary - Full Document

Gurmit Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 20 November, 2015

A Division Bench of this Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) NITIN 2015.11.21 13:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRWP No. 1647 of 2015 -7- 504 considered a case where immediately after the conviction of the prisoner in the said case he applied for emergency release for four weeks on account of illness of his mother who was advised operations. It was held that the prisoner was entitled to emergency release on parole under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. Proviso to Rule 3 (2) which provides that no application shall be processed by the Superintendent of Jail, unless the prisoner had maintained good conduct after his conviction for at least four months in jail, was held to be a procedural provision. It was directory in nature and not mandatory and the provisions of the Act are substantive provision which would prevail over the procedural provisions of the Rules.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S S Saron - Full Document

Vikas Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 1 August, 2018

On the other hand, the learned State counsel has cited three judgments titled as Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in Law Finder DOC Id #690104 ; Maneesh Goomer vs. State (Delhi) 2013(6) R.C.R. (Criminal) 2736 and CRL.M.C. 3683/2016 titled as Pradeep Kumar Sehdev vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Decided on 30.09.2016 to contend that despite the fact that the main FIR itself has been compromised between the parties, subsequent FIR registered under Section 174-A of the IPC cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - R Sehrawat - Full Document

Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 14 May, 2014

This order shall dispose of the CRM-M No. 31828 of 2013 titled as 'Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another' and CRM-M No. 29144 of 2013 titled as 'Rajinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab' as both these petitions have been preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner(s) in case FIR No. 10 dated 8.8.2013, under Sections 406, 498-A IPC, registered at Police Station Women Cell, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - T S Dhindsa - Full Document

Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 16 September, 2014

6. Ex facie the arguments of learned counsel that although the offences punishable u/ss 279, 304-A and 427 IPC are not compoundable, but still, the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) deserves to be quashed on the basis of compromise (Annexure P2), in view of the observations of this Court in case Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and another 2011(2) AICLR 302, wherein in a very brief order, it was observed as under (paras 5 to 7):-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - M S Sullar - Full Document

Liakat Ali And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 15 September, 2014

By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of CRM-M- 13582-2013, titled 'Liakat Ali and another vs. State of Punjab and another' and CRM-M-22831-2014, titled 'Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab and another', as in both these petitions, prayer has been made for quashing of case FIR No.92 dated 26.08.2012, registered at Police Station City Malerkotla, District Sangrur, under Sections 457/456/448/380/511/427/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of compromise dated 03.04.2013 (Annexure P-2 in CRM-M- 13582-2013) and dated 24.05.2014 (Annexure P-2 in CRM-M-22831- 2014), alongwith all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P Singh - Full Document

Nirmal Singh @Nimma vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 February, 2016

Admittedly, the marriage of the brother is fixed for 26.2.2016. It has also not been disputed that earlier also, the petitioner was granted the concession of parole and he has not misused the same. Therefore, the order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.2, declining the prayer ASHWANI KUMAR 2016.02.24 17:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh Criminal Writ Petition No.261of 2016 -3- of the petitioner for grant of parole, does not appear to be justified Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also judgments of this Court in the cases of Gurpreet Singh (supra), Vijay Kumar Sharma (supra), the present petition is allowed, the order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent no.2 is quashed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on parole from 25.2.2016 to 5.3.2016, subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Patiala.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - H P Verma - Full Document

Gulam M Ghanchi vs D/O Post on 8 March, 2018

argument placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. State of Punjab & Another [(2003) SCC (L&S) 20] to submit that retirement benefits could not be denied once termination was set aside and consequential benefits needs to be granted by considering the employee to be in continuity of service. He further relies on a decision rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No. 1272 of 2010 wherein this Hon‟ble High Court held that in case of reinstatement, continuity of service is impliedly included.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neeru & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 1 March, 2018

"7. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Kulwinder Singh's case (Supra) and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in my considered opinion, once the matter has been compromised by the parties, no useful purpose shall be served by proceeding with the prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court. Even otherwise, the compromise is neither abhorrent to lawful composition of the society nor would it promote savagery.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - M S Sindhu - Full Document
1   2 Next