Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 270 (1.78 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Gujarat vs Akhilesh C. Bhargav & Ors on 26 August, 1987

State vs . Akhilesh & Ors. ­ Sc No. 27 Of 2010 1/35 on 28 July, 2012

45. These contradictions cannot be held to be minor. Firstly, it is not clear whether complainant came to Delhi on 6th, 9th or on 12th September, 2008. Admittedly, he had telephonically talked with Meena (deceased). The call detail record of the telephone of PW­2 and the deceased would have shown, whether they State Vs. Akhilesh & Ors. ­ SC No. 27 of 2010 26/35 Unique ID No. 02406R0221352011 had actually talked or not. Evidence of the complainant shows that the deceased was not willing to accompany the accused persons at the other place i.e. Hari Nagar, where he wanted to shift and significantly, she had not made any other complaint to her brother (PW­2), soon before the alleged incident on 09th, September, 2008. This evidence indicates that the deceased was not willing to join her husband at Hari Nagar.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Ravi Bhargav Etc. on 21 January, 2015

4. There are specific allegations against the accused husband that he used to harass her and used to beat her on non fulfillment of demand of dowry. There is incident dated 1 State Vs. Ravi Bhargav etc. 15.07.2008 wherein, the accused husband made a demand of Rs. five lac in cash and harassed the complaint not being given the same. Therefore ingredient of section 498-A IPC is made out against the accused husband. Further, it is also alleged that Rs. 2 lacs were handed over to the accused husband. However, there is no allegation of not giving the same when demanded. Hence, ingredient of section 406 IPC is not made out against the accused husband Ravi Bhargav.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Akhilesh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 28 August, 2025

7. Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, quash the entire proceedings and charge sheet dated 25.07.2020 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 30.07.2020, passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) / FTC/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar against the applicant nos.1 to 5 in Session Case No.636 of 2022, (State versus Akhilesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.340 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 506, 188, 271 IPC and 3 Pandemic Act, 1897 and 51(b) Disaster Management Act, 2005, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 12.01.2024, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO Act-I), Sant Kabir Nagar against the applicant no.6 in Session Case No.636 of 2022, (State versus Akhilesh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.340 of 2020, under Sections 308, 323, 506, 188, 271, 147, 148 IPC and 3 Pandemic Act, 1897, and 51(b) Disaster Management Act, 2005, pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court-II, Sant Kabir Nagar, are hereby quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S Srivastava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next