Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 124 (2.85 seconds)
Documents citing Om Kr. Dhankar vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 28 February, 2012

Arshad Ahmed Siddiqui vs State on 2 December, 2021

4. Ld counsel for revisionists argued on the line of grounds as taken in the instant revision petition. It was forcefully argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as Trial Court erred in law by summoning the revisionists. It was further argued that revisionists herein was not originally chargesheeted rather they were kept in column No.12 and they were not summoned at the first instance by concerned Trial Court finding no sufficient ground to proceed against them. It was argued that there is no specific allegations against the revisionists. It was further argued that the accused No.1 i.e. Javed Azmi is the main kingpin who was appointed as Caretaker of property in question by the father of revisionists. It was further argued that revisionists herein have nothing to do with the alleged offence. It was argued that respondent no.2 concocted a false story and levelled baseless allegations against the revisionists so as to usurp the properties of father of revisionists. Ld counsel has relied upon judgment of Crl Rev. No. 42 of 2019 Arshad Ahmed Siddiqui & Anr Vs State & Anr Page No. 3 of 10 Digitally signed by ANUJ ANUJ AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2021.12.02 15:14:11 +0530 Apex Court in case On Kumar Dhankar Vs State of Haryana, (2012) 11 SCC 252 in support of his contention. On the strength of these arguments, revisionists seeks set aside of impugned order.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sashanka Naidu W/O. Prakash Naidu vs Prakash Naidu S/O. M. Balkrishna Naidu on 2 November, 2018

In a recent decision of this court in Om Kumar Dhankar v. State of Haryana, the decisions in Madhu Limaye, V.C. Shukal, K.M. Mathew, Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar ending with Rajendra Kumar Sitaram pande, was considered and by making specific reference to para 6 of the judgment in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande, this Court has held as under in para 10: (Om Kumar Dhankar Case) In view of the above legal position, we hold, as it must be, that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was available to Respondent 2 in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - S B Shukre - Full Document

Rajendra Prasad Bajpai vs The State Of U.P on 21 July, 2014

4. Perusal of the above extracted portion from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Urmila Devi's case (supra), it transpires that while referring to law laid down in Om Kumar Dhankar Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2012(11) SCC 252 ; Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra : 1977 (4) SCC 551 ; V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I. :1980(2) SCR 380 ; K.M.Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and another : 1992(1) SCC 217 ; Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and others : 2006(1)Apex Court Judgements 325 (S.C.) : 2006 (1) Criminal Court Cases 636 (S.C.)
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - A Lamba - Full Document

Mareppa And Ors vs Pushapanjali on 10 December, 2021

In view of the principles laid down in the Division Bench referring the judgment of the Apex Court and those judgments are subsequent to the judgment of the Apex Court in OM KUMAR DHANKAR's case. But in all those cases, issuance of summons challenged for the IPC offences and here is a case, the second respondent invoked provisions of DV Act and the complaint filed by the respondent before the Trial Court is invoking the enabling provisions for seeking protection against the domestic violence and also seeking for monetary compensation. 17 Hence, I am of the opinion that the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable and need not invoke section 29 of the DV Act or filing an appeal and Section 29 of the DV Act is very clear that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Sessions within 30 days from the date of which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person. Hence, Section 29 of the DV Act not takes away the right of the petitioners seeking an order under section 482 of Cr.P.C wherein the petitioners have attributed that very initiating of the DV Act against them is an abuse of process. Under such circumstances, Court can exercise the powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. and hence the petition is maintainable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Seema Asthana vs Jaideep Arora on 13 May, 2022

3. In this regard it is pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the revisionist that the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the Hon'ble High Court has not gone into the issue of maintainability of a revision petition against the summoning order and has decided the matter on merits. He has further relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Om Kumar CR No. 289/2019 Page 2 of 11 ASJ­04/KKD/Delhi Dhankar v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 252, wherein it was held as under :
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next