Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Naresh Kumar Behl vs State Of Punjab And Another on 26 May, 2010

M/S Nagesh Behl & Co. vs . State & Anr. on 31 October, 2013

5. A perusal of Trial Court record would reveal that after service upon the accused in the criminal complaint only his counsel put in appearance on 07.05.2013, 25.07.2013 and 10.09.2013. On the first mentioned two dates, it was submitted that accused wanted to file compounding application. On 25.07.2013 it was submitted that matter had been compounded. Although there is nothing on record that matter had been compounded, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that application for compounding was filed before the competent authority in January, 2013 and its copy was to be filed before the Courts. Petitioner Crl. Rev. No.195/2013 2 of 3 M/s Nagesh Behl & Co. Vs. State & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Nagesh Behl & Co. vs . State & Anr. on 31 October, 2013

5. A perusal of Trial Court record would reveal that after service upon the accused in the criminal complaint only his counsel put in appearance on 07.05.2013, 25.07.2013 and 10.09.2013. On the first mentioned two dates, it was submitted that accused wanted to file compounding application. On 25.07.2013 it was submitted that matter had been compounded. Although there is nothing on record that matter had been compounded, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that application for compounding was filed before the competent authority in January, 2013 and its copy was to be filed before the Courts. Petitioner Crl. Rev. No.190/2013 2 of 3 M/s Nagesh Behl & Co. Vs. State & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Nagesh Behl & Co. vs . State & Anr. on 31 October, 2013

5. A perusal of Trial Court record would reveal that after service upon the accused in the criminal complaint only his counsel put in appearance on 07.05.2013, 25.07.2013 and 10.09.2013. On the first mentioned two dates, it was submitted that accused wanted to file compounding application. On 25.07.2013 it was submitted that matter had been compounded. Although there is nothing on record that matter had been compounded, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that application for compounding was filed before the competent authority in January, 2013 and its copy was to be filed before the Courts. Petitioner Crl. Rev. No.189/2013 2 of 3 M/s Nagesh Behl & Co. Vs. State & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Nagesh Behl & Co. vs . State & Anr. on 31 October, 2013

5. A perusal of Trial Court record would reveal that after service upon the accused in the criminal complaint only his counsel put in appearance on 07.05.2013, 25.07.2013 and 10.09.2013. On the first mentioned two dates, it was submitted that accused wanted to file compounding application. On 25.07.2013 it was submitted that matter had been compounded. Although there is nothing on record that matter had been compounded, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that application for compounding was filed before the competent authority in January, 2013 and its copy was to be filed before the Courts. Petitioner Crl. Rev. No.192/2013 2 of 3 M/s Nagesh Behl & Co. Vs. State & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Nagesh Behl & Co. vs . State & Anr. on 31 October, 2013

5. A perusal of Trial Court record would reveal that after service upon the accused in the criminal complaint only his counsel put in appearance on 07.05.2013, 25.07.2013 and 10.09.2013. On the first mentioned two dates, it was submitted that accused wanted to file compounding application. On 25.07.2013 it was submitted that matter had been compounded. Although there is nothing on record that matter had been compounded, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that application for compounding was filed before the competent authority in January, 2013 and its copy was to be filed before the Courts. Petitioner Crl. Rev. No.191/2013 2 of 3 M/s Nagesh Behl & Co. Vs. State & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Nagesh Behl & Co. vs . State & Anr. on 31 October, 2013

5. A perusal of Trial Court record would reveal that after service upon the accused in the criminal complaint only his counsel put in appearance on 07.05.2013, 25.07.2013 and 10.09.2013. On the first mentioned two dates, it was submitted that accused wanted to file compounding application. On 25.07.2013 it was submitted that matter had been compounded. Although there is nothing on record that matter had been compounded, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that application for compounding was filed before the competent authority in January, 2013 and its copy was to be filed before the Courts. Petitioner Crl. Rev. No.193/2013 2 of 3 M/s Nagesh Behl & Co. Vs. State & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Nagesh Behl & Co. vs . State & Anr. on 31 October, 2013

5. A perusal of Trial Court record would reveal that after service upon the accused in the criminal complaint only his counsel put in appearance on 07.05.2013, 25.07.2013 and 10.09.2013. On the first mentioned two dates, it was submitted that accused wanted to file compounding application. On 25.07.2013 it was submitted that matter had been compounded. Although there is nothing on record that matter had been compounded, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that application for compounding was filed before the competent authority in January, 2013 and its copy was to be filed before the Courts. Petitioner Crl. Rev. No.194/2013 2 of 3 M/s Nagesh Behl & Co. Vs. State & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 11 October, 2013

By way of this order, I shall dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 1543 of 2013 and 1544 of 2013 as both the petitions have emerged out of same judgment dated 11.2.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby the appeals titled "Pawan Kumar vs. State of Punjab and another" and "Naresh Kumar vs. State of Punjab and another" arising out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.2.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib have been allowed and the appellants (respondents herein) were ordered to be acquitted of the offence charged against them.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R Mittal - Full Document

Davinder Kaur & Ors vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 6 December, 2011

He has also placed reliance on Naresh Kumar vs State of Punjab and another (Cr.Misc. M Cr.Misc. M 27853 of 2011 2 18950 of 2009) decided on 16.2.2010. In the said case the petitioner had sought a direction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to the respondents for giving 7 days prior notice in case any cognizable offence is registered against him on the basis of complaint moved by respondents 8 to 13. The petition was dismissed on the ground that it was not pleaded in the petition that the petitioner had a reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of committing a non bailable offence.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - M M Bedi - Full Document
1