Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Rajpal Singh & Ors vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 6 December, 2022

Directions) Rajpal Singh Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 November, 2024

In the above case the applicant has also filed the Khatauni wherein the land of applicant is stated to be declared as commercial land in case No.18/2005, Rajpal Singh Vs. State in this context the order passed in order of arbitrator dated 13.12.2019 is perused. The arbitrator opposite party No.1 in his order has stated that on the call the applicant alongwith his counsel appeared. In his order the arbitrator has not given any findings on the issue that as to why the land of the applicant for the purposes of compensation is treated as This is a digitally signed order.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Sh. Ammi Pal & Ors vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 7 March, 2024

11. In view of the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments, this Court finds no impediment in quashing the present FIR as the parties have amicably resolved their disputes. Since Complainants categorically state that they do not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings, chances of conviction are bleak and no purpose will be achieved even otherwise in continuing the proceedings. It would be in the interest of justice and to maintain peace and harmony between the parties to quash the present FIR. This Court is fortified in its view by the decisions of this Court in N.K. Tomar & Ors. v. State & Ors., CRL.M.C. No.3444/2011 decided on 17.11.2011 and Shri Rajpal Singh & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., CRL.M.C. 3648/2022 decided on 06.12.2022, where the Court has quashed the FIR under similar provisions, predicated on settlement between the parties therein.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Ravi vs State Nct Of Delhi on 24 January, 2024

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the police failed to join. Rahul, a cousin of complainant during investigation who is alleged to be present at the time of the incident, as referred in complainant's cross- examination though it was clarified that his cousin had left at the time of incident. It is further submitted that the appellants did not have common intention and no offence under Section 308 IPC is made out since the nature of injuries is opined to be simple. Both the appellants are stated to be in custody since 11.07.2023. It is also pointed out that the appellants were on bail during the course of trial and have clean past antecedents. Reliance is further placed upon Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 7 SCC 521; and Raju @ Rajpal & Ors. v. The State of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3641.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - A K Mendiratta - Full Document
1