Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Khyali Ram And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 25 February, 1971

The State vs Jai Prakash on 16 September, 2014

Manish Kumar Sharma vs State of Rajasthan :1995 CRLJ 3066  Pallen Deniel Victor @ Victor Hanter and Ors vs State of A.P : 1977(1) Crimes 499  Raj Kumar & Anr vs State of Karnataka :2006(3) Crimes 662  K.Ravi Kumar vs State & Anrs :2008(3) Crimes 345  Khyali Ram & Ors vs State of M.P :2008(1) Crimes 283 (M.P)  Kartar Singh & Ors vs CBI :2006(4) Crimes 498  Dr. Mohd Sohail Fazal vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi):2012(3)JCC 1809State vs Ramesh Sharma & ors :2012(3) JCC 2135  Ramesh Chand Sibbal vs State (GNCT of Delhi): 2009(4)JCC 2681.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashish S/O Anilkumar Mule vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Ps Gadge Nagar ... on 6 October, 2023

17. The similar view has been expressed by the Karnataka High Court in case of Capt. Vipin Menon vs. State of Karnataka I.L.R. 1992 KAR 2622, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Court of its own Motion vs. Ram Lubhaya and ors. 1985 Cri.LJ 896 and the Allahabad High Court in case of Khyali Ram and ors vs. State of U.P. and ors. Recently, the Gujarat High Court by relying on the above decision of the Karnataka High Court in case of Capt.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V G Joshi - Full Document

State vs . Imran Khan & Ors. on 10 August, 2015

8. For the sake of arguments, even if allegations of the complainant are believed on their face value that she had seen accused Sumit Kohli and Abhishek Jain kidnapping her son on 18.01.2010, it is pertinent to note that accused Sumit Kohli himself is father of said boy namely Mihir Kohli and thus cannot be said to have committed an offence of kidnapping his son from the custody of his mother for the purposes of Section 361 IPC. The said proposition is duly acknowledged and affirmed in the case of Khyali Ram & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 1971 Crl. L.J. 1365.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajni Kant Tiwari vs State Th.Home Deptt.And Anr. on 27 September, 2013

In Khyali Ram's case, as the order rendered by the High Court would show, child was removed from the custody of the mother and High Court was of the view that offence of kidnapping under section 363 IPC is not made out. Situation in this case, however, is not only different but peculiar and raises a serious question about the conduct of an Army Officer, who after submitting himself to legal process as long as it suited him has violated law when it suited him otherwise. Petitioner secured presence of the mother and the child in the court by invoking jurisdiction of the Magistrate under section 100 of the Code. In his presence the mother and the child were produced before the Magistrate on 12.01.2012 and both of them were kept on Supardari of one K.P. Dubey with a direction to appear before the court on 14.01.2012. Petitioner has admitted his presence before in the Court of learned Magistrate on 12.01.2012 in para 31 of his petition. All of them came in the court on 14.01.2012. On 14.01.2012, the child as a matter of fact 10 was not in the custody of his mother only but was in custodia legis, having been kept on sapurdari by order of the Magistrate.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikas Hardia vs Kavita Hardia on 16 May, 2019

Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to a citation in the case of Khyali Ram & others vs. State of U.P and another 1971 CRI.L.J 1365 in which it has been held that when the husband gets the possession of his kids it cannot be considered to be kidnapping within the purview of section 363 of the IPC. In para-5 of the said judgment it has been further held that father being the natural guardian of a -2- MCRC No.20052/2019 Hindu minor cannot be held to have committed an offence of kidnapping by removing his minor son from the custody of the mother.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1