Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Cogent Silver Fiber Pte Ltd. vs State on 17 April, 2007

State vs . Sunil Kumar Jain Etc. on 20 April, 2022

6 Ld. counsel for the other accused persons have argued that complainant has filed the complaint without any resolution/authority letter in his favour on behalf of the company. They have further submitted that the complainant has not made the accused persons a party in the Compromise Deed and hence it is clear that the accused persons had no involvement in the present case. 7 Ld. Counsel for the accused Sunil Kumar Jain has relied upon three judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled Chet Singh v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, CrW 698 of 1996 & CrM 508 of 1997; Cogent Silver Fibre PTE Ltd. vs. State, CrRP No. 276/2006; Sonali Verma vs. Ranbir Sharma, CrM(M) 1756/1999 in support of his contention.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pramod Goyal vs State & Ors. on 10 August, 2016

10. He also places reliance on the decision of this Court in Cogent Silver Fibre Pte Ltd. Vs. State, 2007 (5) AD (Delhi) 185, wherein this Court has held that unless an accused is entrusted with property, or entrustment with dominion over property, there can be no criminal breach of trust. In the said case, the Court found that there was no entrustment of property, or entrustment with dominion over property in the accused. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and the criminal proceedings, since the offence under Section 406 IPC was not made out.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - V Sanghi - Full Document

Sarvjeet Singh vs State ( N.C.T Of Delhi) on 27 January, 2012

8. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cogent Silver Fiber Pvt. Ltd. vs. State 2007 (2) JCC 1363 to argue that unless there is an initial intention to cheat and delivery of property, neither criminal breach of trust nor cheating would be made out and in the present case also, there is nothing to show about the presence of these two elements and hence the charge u/s 406/420 IPC may be set aside.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Pooran S/O Sh. Raja Ram vs (1)Nain Singh on 16 December, 2011

6 To press his contentions, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment in case of Cogent Silver Fibres PTE Ltd. vs. State 2007(2) JCC 1363 wherein it was held that when an offence has been disclosed, the Magistrate ought to issue directions under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. It was also observed that offences under S.C./S.T.Act are serious offence and Police Officer below the rank of ACP, is not empowered to investigate the matter. 7 However, this authority does not render any help to CR No.45/2011 Pooran vs. Nain Singh etc. Page 4 of 8 the petitioner inasmuch as question involved in the present case is with regard to issuance of directions by the Ld. Court to the police or taking of cognizance by the Court itself on the complaint of the petitioner. As per Section 190 of Cr.PC, when a complaint is received, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint. After taking cognizance, the Magistrate can adopt two methods. Firstly, the Magistrate may forward the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, without taking cognizance, to investigate and file a report. Secondly, the Magistrate may take the cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint and conduct proceedings under Section 202 of Cr.PC. In this case, Ld. M.M. exercised his discretion and instead of adopting former procedure, preferred to take cognizance on the complaint of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to adduce pre­ summoning evidence.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Sandeep Aggarwal vs Sh. Mohan Lal Goyal on 26 August, 2015

9. Per contra, Ld. counsel of respondents vehemently argued that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was argued on their behalf that no cogent material whatsoever was placed on record by revisionist in order to show that offence of cheating was made out against them. They further argued that revisionist filed the complaint case for the offence of cheating out of personal vengeance against them and thus, trial Court has rightly discharged them for the said offence. They also placed heavy reliance upon the unreported decisions in the matter of "Cogent Silver Fiber Pvt. Ltd Vs. State" decided on 17.04.2007 and in the matter of "M.P. Singh Sawhney Vs. State & Ors." decided on 30.05.2013 by our own High Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1