Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 178 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Swaran Singh & Ors vs State Tr.Standing Council & Anr on 18 August, 2008

Smt. Deepika Kamal vs The State on 20 May, 2022

11. In the present case, charge for the offence under section 506 of the IPC was framed by the Ld. Trial Court on 17.11.2016. Protest Petition was filed by the complainant on 15.09.2017. Basic contention made by the complainant in her Protest Petition was that the offence under section 3(1) (x) of the SC / ST (POA) Act was made out but the IO / ACP had erroneously dropped the same. Under section 14 of the SC / ST (POA) Act (prior to amendment), Court of Sessions was made a Special Court to try offences under the said Act. Keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors Vs State & Anr (supra) and the provisions of section 14 of the SC / ST (POA) Act, it would have been appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case for the Ld. Trial Court to have made over the Protest Petition to the Special Court constituted under section 14 of the said Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rekha W/O Shri Kailash Chidiwalaged B/C ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp ... on 14 May, 2025

In view of discussions made hereinabove, the judgment in case of Swaran Singh and Ors. Vs State Through Standing Council and Anr. (supra) is not applicable and the Trial Court has not committed any error as the order cannot be considered as perverse or illegal, therefore, instant leave to appeal sans merits and liable to be dismissed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A K Jain - Full Document

Shailendra Bankebihari Singh vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 12 March, 2026

10.1) As per the contents of F.I.R., the allegations of abusing the Respondent No.2 on his caste were within the four walls of his cow shade and therefore in view of the decision in the case of Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State Through Standing Counsel and Anr (supra), it cannot be said to be a place within the public view, as none of the said witness present at the scene of offence, was an independent witness.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A S Gadkari - Full Document

Arbind Kumar Singh @ Arvind Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 October, 2021

11. On perusal of the complaint dated 28.02.2019, it may be transpired that there is allegation against the petitioner of abuse or 6 unparliamentary word against the informant. The allegation is also there that 25-30 persons have seen the occurrence. In the F.I.R there is no disclosure of caste of this informant and petitioner. The informant has disclosed his caste himself and the caste of this petitioner has not been disclosed. In the enquiry report brought on the record, certain allegation made against the informant have been found to be true. So far the public view is concerned, that has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Swaran Singh And Others v. State Through Standing Counsel and Another" (supra) and in paragraph 28, it has also been held that if the remark is made inside the building but some persons of the public are there, then also it would be an offence within public view. Thus, the petitioner has not made out the case on the point of public view.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next