Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 209 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Shivjee Singh vs Nagendra Tiwary & Ors on 6 July, 2010

Wasim And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 May, 2019

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is true that in Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary & Ors. (supra), as a fact, the complainant had, after recording evidence of two out of four witnesses, given up the remaining two witnesses for reason of his apprehension that they had been won over by the accused. However, that distinction of the fact apart, the Supreme Court has, after making detailed consideration of the various provisions falling under Chapters XV and XVI of the Cr.P.C. and existing precedent, culled out the legal situation emanating therefrom. In paragraph no. 22 of that decision, the Supreme Court considered the usage of the word "all" appearing in the proviso to Section 202 (2) Cr.P.C. and found it to be qualified by the word "his", i.e. the complainant. It was then reasoned that such qualification implied that the complainant was not bound to examine all the witnesses named in the complaint or whose names may have been disclosed in response to the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S D Singh - Full Document

Smt Shajjia Sultana And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep,.Pp And ... on 27 June, 2018

In "Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary" (referred supra) the facts are different. In the said judgment, in a case to be tried by the Sessions Court, a private complaint was filed and the Magistrate took cognizance and failed to record evidence of other witnesses produced before the Court and issued process for securing the presence of the accused to comply with the requirement under Section 207 and 209 of Cr.P.C. The question in the said judgment was that non compliance of Section 200 (2) of Cr.P.C. is fatal. But the Apex Court after elaborate consideration of various provisions of Cr.P.C. adverting to the law laid down by the Apex Court in long line of decisions concluded that it is not fatal.
Telangana High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Khanna vs Sh. Jitender Kumar Khanna on 17 September, 2021

18. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the cases of Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, Fiona Shrikhande Vs State of Maharashtra & CR No. 113/2020 Rajesh Kumar Khanna Vs Jitender Khanna & Anr. Page No. 7 of 8 Anr. and Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary (supra) and evidence led by the complainant, in the opinion of this court, there was sufficient material on the record to summon the accused persons for the offences under sections 323/451/34 of the IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Jas vs State Of U.P.Through Its ... on 7 November, 2012

22.Observation of the Magistrate that it is not possible that witnesses would remain mute spectator if police personnel take away somebody i.e. his wife is absolutely uncalled for. Similar is the observation that it is not clear as to how complainant or his wife were physically or mentally incapacitated that they were taken in the police jeep. Observation that sufficient evidence was not given and other witnesses should have been examined, is also uncalled for. Apex Court in the case of Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary & others [(2010) 7 SCC 578] has held as under :-
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S K Saxena - Full Document

Abhay Jain And 2 Ors. vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 6 August, 2018

58.The Respondents have further placed reliance on Shivjee Singh Vs Nagendra Tiwarey reported in 2010(7) SCC 578 where it is held that "Sufficient ground" to initiate the criminal 24. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE MCRC No.431/2014 Abhay Jain and others vs. State of M.P. and Anr. proceedings means satisfaction that a Prima facie case is made out against the accused and not sufficient ground for securing his conviction.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Shyamal Kanti Goswami & Anr vs Ashim Mukherjee on 8 October, 2013

(c)  The  irregularity  or  non‐compliance  thereof  would  not  vitiate  the  further  proceeding  in  all  cases.  A  person  complaining  of  such  irregularity  should  raise  objection  at  the earliest stage and he should point out how prejudice is  caused  or  is  likely  to  be  caused  by  not  following  the  proviso.  If  he  fails  to  raise  such  objection  at  the  earliest  stage, he is precluded from raising such objection later."      This view was reiterated in Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary & Ors.,  (2010) 7 SCC 578 as follows :
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 37 - Cited by 7 - J Bagchi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next