Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing Satyendra Kumar Jain & Anr. vs State & Anr. on 1 July, 2010

M.M. Rai Khanna & Another vs State & Another on 31 August, 2010

10. I have already reproduced in nutshell the main allegations made in the FIR. The allegations, if correct, it cannot be said do not disclose commission of a cognizable offence which at least requires investigation. I refrain from expressing any opinion or making observations on merits of the allegation as this will cause prejudice to the parties. It may be noted here that the police after investigation has already filed a charge sheet before the court. Thus, the investigation has concluded and the police has come to the conclusion that a charge sheet should be filed and closure report has not been filed. Recently, in the case of Satyendra Kumar Jain and Another versus State and Another, Crl.M.C. No 5553-54/2006 decided on 1st July, 2010, it was observed as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - S Khanna - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Kuldeep Singh & Ors on 20 April, 2026

86. Similarly, Raghav Chadha v. Chhail Bihari Goswami & Ors.: CRL.M.C. 8484/2023 and Satyendra Kumar Jain v. State & Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 134/2026 Page 41 of 115 By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:20.04.2026 23:53:54 Anr.: CRL.M.C. 8514/2023, were two petitions filed by members/leaders of the same political party of which applicant Sh. Arvind Kejriwal is the National Convenor. In those matters, summons had been issued to the petitioners in complaint cases of defamation filed by the members of another political party. In the said petitions, this Court, this Judge, in the interest of justice, had directed the learned Trial Court to adjourn the matter to a date beyond the date fixed before this Court, and the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioners was allowed to continue. This was done even though no arguments were heard on the merits of the case due to paucity of time, which was specifically recorded in the order itself. No allegation of any bias or any ideological inclination was then raised against this Court by any of the parties. The petitioners in those cases, who belonged to the political party of applicant Sh. Arvind Kejriwal, also never argued that no interim order should be passed in their favour without first hearing the other side. Notably, the interim order has been operating in favour of the petitioners therein for more than two years.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Anil Aggarwal & Others vs Smr Electronics Pvt. Ltd on 10 August, 2010

In this connection, he relies upon the decision dated 1st July, 2010 in Criminal M.C. No.5553-54/2006 in Satyendra Kumar Jain & Another Vs. State & Another, in which it has been held that once the charge sheet is filed then only resort available to an accused is to either challenge the charge sheet as not making out any offence or argue the matter before learned trial court at the stage of framing of the charge.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Khanna - Full Document
1