Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 75 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing Balwant Singh vs State Of Haryana on 18 March, 1994

Balwant Singh vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi Through Its ... on 11 November, 2025

When he reached PS, he was shocked to learn that a counter complaint was filed by Seenu's brother. ASI Hukum Singh started abusing the complainant. At about 4:00 AM, complainant was arrested on the complaint of his wife and he was taken to Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination. On return from hospital he was beaten by ASI Hukum Singh and Constable Balwant when he refused to write that he had assaulted CA no. 650/24 Balwant Singh Vs. State page 2 of 15 his wife and child. He was mercilessly beaten. He was produced before SEM Vasant Vihar and he was unlawfully sent to judicial custody till 16.04.2016. After release in the evening of 16.04.2016, the complainant got his medical examination done at Safdarjung Hospital. Subsequently, he had come to know that Seenu had lodged false complaint of dowry on 19.04.2016. The complainant had given complaint on 06.05.2016 regarding the incident but the police did not register FIR. Thereafter, the complainant had filed application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC for ordering investigation in the complaint dated 06.05.2016 and for registration of FIR. In the said application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC, allegations were made against ASI Hukum Singh, Balwant (revisionist-accused herein), one unknown Constable, Seenu Suhag and her family members. Ld. MM dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.PC moved by the complainant and the complainant filed criminal revision before Ld. ASJ, New Delhi District. Vide order dated 03.01.2018, the criminal revision filed by the complainant was allowed and the SHO PS Vasant Kunj North was directed to register an FIR. Thereafter, FIR no. 35/2018 dated 18.01.2018 u/s 323/348/506/34 IPC was registered at PS Vasant Kunj (North) on the complaint of complainant Anuj Suhag. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offence u/s 323/506/34 IPC against Vikram and Deepak and charge-sheet was filed for offence u/s 323/34 IPC against ASI Hukum Singh and revisionist-accused Balwant Singh. Charge- sheet was filed in the Court of Ld. MM on 25.09.2023 and an application for condonation of delay was filed by the IO. Notice was issued to the complainant and the accused persons.
Delhi District Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Balwant Singh S/O Late Dipa vs The State on 9 July, 2018

9.2. The deceased expired on 15.07.17 leaving behind four surviving   class   1   legal   heirs   i.e   petitioner,   respondent   no.4, respondent no.7  and respondent no.8.   Respondent no.4 & 8 have given their no objections in favour of petitioner in respect of  debts and   securities   of   deceased   as   mentioned   in   the   present   petition. Further,   the   deceased   had   executed   a   Will   dated   12.07.2017 Ex.PW1/D  (OSR).  The  petitioner  has  examined   both  the  attesting witnesses of the said Will. In order to prove a Will, the petitioner, who is propounder of the impugned Will, has to pass the litmus test of Section 63 Indian Succession Act, 1925 and it is required to be proved in accordance with Section 68 to Section 71 of Evidence Act, 1872. They have proved the said Will in accordance with the said Page no.5 of 7                                                                                         Balwant Singh vs. The State & ors.                                                                                                                               SC­90/17                                     law.   Thus,   it   is   established   that   the   deceased   executed   a   Will Ex.PW1/D (OSR) and therefore, his estate shall devolve upon his successors in accordance with the said Will. As per said Will, the testator  has   bequeathed   his debts   and  securities   in  favour   of  the petitioner only.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sushil Arora vs State on 8 February, 2017

23. Reference may be also given to Balwant Singh v. State, 1976 C.L.R. (Delhi) 41, wherein again the emphasis was laid on compliance of the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which require the substance of the FIR to be recorded in Daily Diary and Rule 24.1 of the Punjab Police Rules Volume III which require the sending of the special report promptly to the higher authorities including Illaqa Magistrate and to the provisions of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which require preparation of the inquest report promptly and for sending of the dead body alongwith the inquest papers to the doctor for post-mortem without any delay. In the said case the court came to the conclusion be cause these provisions have not been complied with that in all probility the F.I.R. was ante timed by the police for introducing false eye-witnesses.
Delhi High Court Cites 250 - Cited by 1 - R K Gauba - Full Document

Smt. Mahesha Devi vs State Of U.P. And Others on 18 August, 1998

"(1) Whether the decision in Balwant v. State (supra), or the decision Uma Shankar v. State, Sukhbir v. Prescribed Authority and Kedar Singh v. 1st Additional District Judge, lay down the correct law on the question of the true meaning and scope of Section 34 (3) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. XX of 1976) and Section 38B of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act. 1960 as amended up to date ;
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudesh, Subhash And Sudheer All S/O Sri ... vs State Of U.P. on 7 February, 2007

So also in Balwant Singh v. State (supra) this Court reiterated that "the State should not stultify the Court by first stating that there is a true case to be tried and then make voile face to the effect that on a second investigation the case has been discovered to be false". The Public Prosecutor in this last mentioned case sought to rely on a second investigation for supporting the application for withdrawal but that was clearly and unequivocally not countenanced by this Court. Obviously, the Public Prosecutor would be on much weaker ground when on the same material which was before the Court when it framed the charge, he subsequently seeks to withdraw the prosecution on the ground that there is not sufficient, evidence to sustain the prosecution. It is, therefore, clear that though the prosecution can be withdrawn at any stage, even after the framing of the charge, it would not be competent to the Public Prosecutor, once the charge is framed, to apply for withdrawal of the prosecution on the ground that the same material which was before the Court when it framed the charge is not sufficient to sustain the prosecution. Of course, if some material has subsequently come to light which throws doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case the Public Prosecutor can certainly apply for withdrawal on the ground that the prosecution is not well founded. It may also happen that in the meanwhile key witness may have died or some important evidence may have become unavailable or some such thing may have happened ; in that event, the Public Prosecutor may legitimately feel that it will not be possible to sustain the prosecution in the absence of such evidence and he may apply for withdrawal from the prosecution. But, on the same material without anything more, the Public Prosecutor cannot apply for withdrawal from the prosecution after the charge is framed. To allow him to do so would impair the faith of the people in the purity and integrity of the judicial process.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V Prasad - Full Document

Surender Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 30 August, 2006

31. A reference has been made by the learned Counsel for the appellants to the authorities i.e. Balwant Singh v. State of Haryana 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 369 and Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) 474, wherein it was observed that offence under Section 364-A IPC is not made out against the appellants in the case got registered by a private individual. With due regard to both the judgments, we stand to differ with the same as no proper assistance has been rendered by the State as well as defence counsel in order to reach the right conclusion. Now coming to the other argument that for want of specific evidence regarding demand of ransom, the offence under Section 364-A IPC does not become complete. The same lacks merit. The factual position found by the trial Court leads us to observe that the object of abduction of Anmol Mani Chopra was for ransom. PW-9 Amolak Raj Chopra has specifically stated that he had received a telephonic call at his house vide which he was threatened to kill the kidnapee and ransom of Rs. 20 lacs was demanded. The kidnapee has also corroborated the fact that the accused were demanding Rs. 20 lacs for his release from his parents through a mobile phone. Thus, the evidence clearly reveals that demand was made from the parents of the kidnapee and kidnapee was also conveyed about the said demand.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - A N Jindal - Full Document

Mukesh Alias Muki vs The State on 29 November, 1994

In the case of Balwant Singh v. The State, 1976 Chand LR (Cri) 41 (Delhi) the Court on the basis of the facts of that case found that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellant in that case beyond reasonable doubt and it was held that failure to enter the substance of the FIR in the Daily Diary may lead to inference that full facts were not known when the substance was entered if the substance is bereft of names of the accused or the names of the witnesses. It is true that this particular omission of the police on its failure to record the substance as required by the rules may in some cases lead to such inference being drawn against the prosecution but this circumstance alone is not, is our view, sufficient to throw away the direct testimony of the witnesses rendered in Court which if otherwise is found to be credible.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - S D Pandit - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next