Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Sumer Singh vs State on 1 June, 2011

State vs Anil Kumar Dixit on 11 March, 2015

12. Furthermore, in the present case, the FIR was registered on the complaint of PW1 W/SI Vandana and she is also the first IO of the case. This is a glaring irregularity in the investigation of the case. As per the case of the prosecution, the recovery was a chance recovery. On the recovery, PW1 W/SI Vandana was very much entitled to prepare the tehrir and send the same to the PS for registration of the FIR. However, she should have stopped there. She could not assume the role of the IO and the complainant at the same time. She prepared the tehrir and also seized the case property vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A, which is the prerogative of only the IO. In this regard, case titled as Munesh Kumar v. State 2011 (2) Crimes 626 can be relied upon wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reliance On Mahavir Singh vs . State [2014(2)Ad(Delhi)594 Page on 30 August, 2014

17 During course of his submissions, ld. Counsel placed reliance on Mahavir Singh Vs. State [2014(2)AD(Delhi)594 page No. 1-9] ; Rama Kant Sharma [2014(2)AD(Delhi)353 page No. 10-17] ; State of Maharashtra Vs. Ahmed Shaikh [2009(14)SCC 267 page No. 18-31]; Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ 2009 (3)SCC 391 page No. 32-39]; Lahu Kamlakar Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013(6) SCC 417 page No. 40-50] ; State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh [2009(11) SCC 106 page 51-53] ; Mohd. Rashid Vs. State [2009(5) AD Delhi 141 page 54-73] ; Ajesh Kumar Vs. State [2009 VII AD (Delhi)29 page No. 74-78] ; State Vs. Raje Ram [2011 III AD (Delhi) 283 page 79-84] ; Munesh Kumar Vs. State [2011 (124) DRJ 7 page No. 85-90] ; Satyajit Banerjee Vs. State of W.B. [2005(1) SCC 115 page 91-98] ; Harihar Chakarvarty Vs. State of W.B. [AIR 1954 SC 26 page No. 1-3] ; Kapildeo Singh Vs. King [1949-50) FCR 834 page No. 4-12] ; Prabhu Babaji Navle Vs. State of Bombay [AIR 1956 SC 51 page No. 20-23] ; Bhagirath Vs. State of M.P. [1976Crl.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fir No.193/12 St. vs . Jaswant on 24 May, 2013

19.It has been urged on behalf of the accused that the version of the prosecution cannot be trusted in as much as the complainant is also the IO in the present case. Reliance has been placed by the accused on pronouncement of our own Hon'ble High Court in Munesh Kumar Vs. State decided on 01.06.2011. It however, appears that in that case , the author of the rukka had been entrusted with the investigation even after registration of FIR. However, in the present case after registration of FIR, investigation was handed over to PW5 H C Om Prakash who conducted further investigation. Thus, it appears that it cannot be said in the present case that the IO was also the complainant.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1