Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing Surinder Kaur & Another vs Rajinder Singh & Others on 22 July, 2008

R/O C­22 vs Rajinder Singh on 25 November, 2013

19. The plaintiff has pleaded that the said rent note is forged Smt. Verinder Kaur Vs Rajinder Singh Cs No. 171/12 13 as the same was not executed by her. The plaintiff did not reply to the notice but has simply relied on the averment that no such written agreement was executed so the original is not with her. It has already been proved that the plaintiff has failed to prove the allegation of forgery.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Nirmala And Others vs Smt. Bhateri on 10 March, 2009

Counsel for the petitioners rely upon a Single Bench judgment Criminal Misc. No. M-33608 of 2008 2 of this Court rendered in Surinder Kaur v. Rajinder Singh 1993 Criminal Court Judgments 729 (P&H) to say that once petitioner has faced proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. he cannot be tried for the offences for which he has been summoned by the trial Court. Counsel submits that this will amount to double jeopardy and no cognizance can be taken because of bar under Section 300 Cr.P.C. read with Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. This contention cannot be accepted as it is well settled law that proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. are not punitive in nature but are preventive. They are initiated only to allay apprehension of breach of peace. Surinder Kaur's judgment (supra) was the judgment on the facts of that case.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - K S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Satvir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 October, 2012

Injuries are too small to have any impact. Moreover statement of the police U/S 161 Cr.P.C. also shows some cutting as to the timing in the incident which creates doubt to the whole prosecution story. Question of double jeopardy is also involved. It was held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Surinder Kaur v/s Rajinder Singh 862 RCR (criminal) 1999) that where challan u/s 107/151 presented and accused discharged then separate criminal complaint cannot sustain. In the instant case also proceedings U/S 107/151 Cr.P.C were also started and present case accordingly should not have continued. Crl.Misc.No.M- 31833 of 2012 6 Crl.Rev.No.1361 of 2012 Most importantly about 12 persons were named but 10 persons have been left out by the police without any explanation. General version that they were found innocent cannot be accepted more importantly when the witnesses are deposing against other persons also. Pick and choose policy of two persons cannot be made. Entire sequence of events make prosecution case doubtful and it shall not be safe to convict the accused. Accused are accordingly acquitted of the charge framed against them."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Sabina - Full Document
1