Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing Shri G.C. Nautiyal And Ors. vs State And Ors. on 13 March, 2002

Masihi Sahitya Sanstha vs Paul Samuel on 31 October, 2011

the revisionist i.e. (2006) 1 Supreme court Cases 627 titled Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (Smt) & Anr., 97(2002) DLT 542 titled G.C.Nautiyal Vs. State and 2008(106) DRJ 192 titled Puran Mal Gupta Vs. State. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned in the revision and in view of the civil suit filed by the revisionist, I am of the view that these case law are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saroj W/O Late Sh. Sushil Kumar vs State on 27 July, 2013

3. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that once it was brought to the notice of the court that the cognizable offence had been committed, the FIR should have been directed to be registered since even otherwise police officers are duty bound to register the case on receiving information of cognizable offence. It was submitted that the police authorities have utterly failed to follow their statutory duty for lodging the FIR as was held by Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.C. Nautiyal & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 2002 II AD (Cr) DHC 177, 2001 Crl. L.J. 954 (SC) , 2001 Crl.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Dhanwati Dixit vs (1) Sh. Ram Chander Dixit on 18 May, 2011

(1) Judgment of Division Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as "G.C Nautiyal & Others Vs. State & Others, 2002 III AD (DELHI) Cr.R. No. 15/11 Page 4 of 9 5 1040". In the said case, the petitioners were the officials of Excise Department and respondent No. 4 was the factory owner. Both sides have lodged a complaint to the police i.e R3 who register an FIR on R-4's complaint but failed to do so on petitioner's complaint. In the said case, factory of R4 identified for evasion of central excise duty.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Ravinder Verma vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 20 February, 2018

5. The   impugned   order   has   been   assailed   on   the   grounds;   that   the order passed by Ld. Trial Court is based on conjecture and surmises; that Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the record along with case file; that Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated that the complaint was made to the SHO and DCP; that Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as Hon'ble Apex Court i.e.  Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P.,  G.C.   Nautiyal   &   Ors.   vs.  The  State,  Suresh  Chand   vs.  State  of   M.P., Mahendro vs. The State of Punjab and Surender Singh Sobti vs. The State; that Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated that by way of agreement dated 28.11.2015, the   accused   persons   succeeded   to   cheat   the   revisionist;   that   accused   Nitin Sharma served with the legal notice but he did not bother to reply the same.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1