Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing State Of U.P. vs Kallu Faqir @ Rukhshar Ahmad on 9 July, 2010

State vs Raghubir @ Kallu on 19 July, 2024

In absence of identification of case/ stolen property by the complainant, the allegations qua commission of offence punishable under section State vs. Raghubir @ Kallu FIR No. 001169/20 Page No.3 of 4 411 IPC would not have been successfully substantiated as the offence of knowingly receiving or retaining stolen property cannot be established unless the property recovered is proved to be stolen.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Faiz Ahmad @ Faiz vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 13 August, 2019

The judgement and order dated 23.5.2019, passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Siddarth Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2019 (Faiz Ahmad v. State of U.P.and others) under section 101 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 by which the District & Sessions Judge, Siddarth Nagar rejected the Second Criminal Appeal of the Revisionist and the order dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Member, Juvenile Justice Board Siddharth Nagar and Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Siddarth Nagar in Suit No. 24 of 2018 (State v. Fair Ahmad) in Case Crime No. 208 of 2018 under section 377 IPC and under section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station -Banshi, District- Siddharth Nagar, are set-aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V K Singh - Full Document

Rukhsar Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 25 September, 2024

Considering the settled proposition of law as also the facts of the case that on the basis of FIR No. 597 of 2020 dated 11.01.2020, lodged by Sub Inspector, P.S.-Gazipur, Lucknow, the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC were initiated against the applicant and are pending as Case No. 60021 of 2021 (State vs. Rukhsar Ahmad) in the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate Custom, Lucknow, wherein the impugned cognizance summoning order dated 25.08.2021 has been passed, this Court finds that interference is required in the matter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Rukhsar Ahmad Shah vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 1 October, 2024

Considering the settled proposition of law as also the facts of the case that on the basis of FIR No. 15 of 2021 dated 20.01.2021, lodged by Sub Inspector, P.S.-Indirangar, Lucknow, the proceedings under Section 174-A IPC were initiated against the applicant and are pending as Case No. 99395/2021 (State vs. Rukhsar Ahmad Shah) in the Court of ACJM-IInd, Lucknow, wherein the impugned cognizance summoning order dated 11.12.2021 has been passed, this Court finds that interference is required in the matter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Rahimullah And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 February, 2023

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Rahimullah and Mona Begum with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding including the charge sheet dated 16.8.2021 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 1.1.2022 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj in Case No. Nil of 2022 (State vs. Azad@Kallu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 329 of 2021, under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj and with the further prayer to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid case during pendency of the present application.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Gopal - Full Document
1