Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.49 seconds)

7 July vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 17 July, 2025

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and on perusal of the FIR and other documents available on record, this Court finds that the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties are a matter of evidence, which can only be looked into by the learned Trial Court at the time of trial when the evidence would be adduced by both the parties. Moreover, the argument of learned counsel for the applicant regarding the trial being time barred is also fallacious, as it is a settled position of law that computation of limitation is done from the lodging of FIR or filing of a complaint and it has no concern as to the date of taking cognizance. On perusal of the present factual matrix, it clearly shows that the complaint of alleged incident was filed before the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Uttarkashi, on 13.09.2018, on which, after departmental inquiry, FIR was registered on 18.09.2019 against the applicant. Both the complaint and the FIR was filed well within three years, on which cognizance was taken at a later stage on 07.02.2023. Thus, in no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the case of respondent No.2 was time barred. My view is further fortified by a judgment dated 04.06.2025 rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam Soni Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another, in Criminal Appeal No.2894 of 2025. For ready reference, the relevant Para Nos. 15 and 16 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:-
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Purohit - Full Document

Bipin Bihari Lal vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 18 December, 2025

6.3. If the limitation period for cognizance, as prescribed under Chapter XXXVI of the Cr.P.C. (now Chapter XXXVIII of the BNSS), were to be deemed applicable in respect of an offence punishable under the D.P. Act, even then the cognizance under section 6 of the D.P. Act in the present matter cannot be deemed to be time-barred. As according to section 469 of the Cr.P.C. (now section 515 of BNSS), if the date of the offence is unknown, then the period of limitation for taking cognizance will start on the day when the aggrieved person or the police officer first learns about the offence. In the instant matter, as per the complaint filed by O.P. No. 2, the complainant (O.P. No. 2) had been residing in the company of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30790 of 2016 dt. 18-12-2025 13/17 the petitioner till December 2008, and as per the previous complaint filed by O.P. No. 2 for the offence under section 498A of the IPC, the complainant (O.P. No. 2) was in the company of the petitioner till July 2008. Though between 2004 and July or December 2008, the relationship between the petitioner and O.P. No. 2 became strained on account of the alleged cruelty and dowry demands allegedly made by the petitioner and his family members with O.P. No. 2, but as per prosecution, O.P. No. 2 had been residing with the petitioner till July or December 2008. Therefore, in such a situation, it cannot be deemed that O.P. No. 2 had developed the feeling that her in-laws, including the petitioner, would not return her Stridhan, and such a feeling can be deemed to have developed in the mind of O.P. No. 2 when she finally left the company of the petitioner and her in-laws. Thus, from the very day the complainant finally left the company of her husband and in-laws, the period of limitation for the offence under section 6 of the D.P. Act can be deemed to have commenced, and the complaint was filed by O.P. No. 2 in February 2009, within three years from the commencement of the period of limitation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam Soni vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301, held that to calculate Patna High Court CR. MISC.
Patna High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Singh - Full Document

Santosh S/O Jitendra Kshirsagar And 12 ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps ... on 17 April, 2026

In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of Ghanshyam Soni vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 676, Mangeram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1681, Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors v. State of Telangana reported in 2025 3 SCC 735, Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2023) 16 SCC 666 and Digambar and Another vs The State Of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836, Mukesh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Special Leave Petition No.12354/2024 decided on 29.11.2024, Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another in Special Leave Petition No.11642/2019 and Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another reported in (2024) 12 SCC 175.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Yumlam Tani vs The State Of A.P on 8 May, 2026

In support of his submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the decision in Ghanshyam Soni vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1301. However, it appears that the reliance placed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is misplaced. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not hold that limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is to be computed from the date of offence till lodging of FIR.
Gauhati High Court - Itanagar Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Yumlam Tani vs The State Of A.P on 8 May, 2026

In support of his submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the decision in Ghanshyam Soni vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1301. However, it appears that the reliance placed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is misplaced. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not hold that limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is to be computed from the date of offence till lodging of FIR.
Gauhati High Court - Itanagar Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Yumlam Tani vs The State Of A.P on 8 May, 2026

In support of his submission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the decision in Ghanshyam Soni vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1301. However, it appears that the reliance placed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is misplaced. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not hold that limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is to be computed from the date of offence till lodging of FIR.
Gauhati High Court - Itanagar Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashim Kumar Samanto vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 19 August, 2025

6. Learned C.G.C. appearing for the State next relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghanshyam Soni vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301 submits that in para-15 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgement in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2003) 8 SCC 559, para-52 of which reads as under:-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A K Choudhary - Full Document
1   2 Next