Sri Ravi @ Ravikumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2023
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil
Kumar v. State of Punjab, reported in (2017) 1 S.C.R.
418 has held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 189 (0.85 seconds)State vs 1. Smt Pushpa Devi on 30 April, 2013
26. During the course of arguments, ld counsel for the accused persons
vehemently contended that the evidence of PW 1 -(Sohan Lal- father of the
complainant); PW 2 - Rohini @ Dolly (complainant) and PW 10 - Smt Krishna
Devi (mother of the complainant) who are material witnesses in this case is not
reliable and trustworthy as these witnesses have made material improvements
and embellishments in their depositions before the court as compared to their
statements recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC as well as their failure to specify
the alleged instances of harassment, torture and beating of the complainant
(PW 2- Rohini @ Dolly) on ground and in connection with dowry demands and
these allegations of harassment and torture are vague, general in nature,
unspecific and bald and in support of this contention reliance has been placed
on the cases reported as Sukhbir Jain & Anr Vs State (supra); Anil Kumar
Vs State of Punjab (supra); Rohstash Vs State of Haryana (supra);
Bhupender @ Kale Vs State (supra); Neelu Chopra & Anr Vs Bharati
(supra); State of NCT of Delhi Vs Rakesh & Ors (supra) and Shiv Kumar
Vs State (supra).
State vs . Paramjeet @ Sonu on 21 April, 2015
31. Learned Counsel for the accused referred to the cases and
are reported as 'Suraj Mal Vs. The State' AIR 1979 SC 1408; 'Anil
Kumar Vs. State of Punjab' 2000 (4) Crimes 283 (SC); 'Devesh Kumar
Vs. State' 2010 (1) JCC 762; 'Rehmat Vs. The State of Haryana' 1996 1
SVLR (CR.)
Ashok Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 10 January, 2023
5. The primary contention raised in the petition is that under
Section 115(4) of the Act, only a police officer above/equal to the rank of
Deputy Superintendent of Police could conduct the search and seizure
without warrant and secondly, the police officer concerned was required to
obtain the opinion of the Registrar of Trade Marks prior to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police making any search or seizure. It was contended
that the entire search and seizure had been undertaken by a Sub Inspector
and an Assistant Sub Inspector. Therefore, since the mandatory requirement
of obtaining the prior opinion of the Registrar has not been complied with,
and the raid was not conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police level
officer, the entire search and seizure stood vitiated, and therefore, the
proceedings against the petitioner ought to be quashed. Reliance is placed
on the judgments passed in the cases of "Anil Kumar versus State of Punjab
and another (CRM-M-9229-2009 decided on 22.03.2011), Satpal and
another versus State of Punjab and others (CRM-M-23090-2009 decided on
11.10.2010), Kasim Ali s/o Akbar Ali and another versus State of Madhya
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 29 November, 2025
8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in the case
of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab (supra) has quashed the FIR under Section
174-A IPC stating that where the main complaint has been withdrawn, the
continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The relevant
extract thereof is as under: -
Biplav Biswas vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 May, 2019
50. While discussing the credibility of an Extra Judicial Confession, the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had contended that the
learned Trial Court had erred in relying upon the Extra Judicial
Confession of the appellants heard by Rajbir Singh (PW-10) because
CRL.A. 681/2017 & other connected matters Page 28 of 58
the same is a weak piece of evidence and it cannot be relied upon
without corroboration.In support of his contention, the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Jayendra Saraswathi
Swamigal v. State Of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 2 SCC 13, Kadamanian vs
State (2016) 9 SCC 325; Kusuma Ankama Rao v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, (2015) 4 SCC281; Anil Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2008 2
RCR (Criminal).
Deepak Nagpal vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2025
8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in
the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab(supra) has quashed the
FIR under Section 174-A IPC stating that where the main complaint has
been withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of
process of law. The relevant extract thereof is as under:-
Rajeev Ranjan Kumar Alias Ranjiv Ranjan ... vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 18 November, 2025
8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in the case
of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab (supra) has quashed the FIR under Section
174-A IPC stating that where the main complaint has been withdrawn, the
continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. The relevant
extract thereof is as under: -
Bijender vs State Of Haryana on 16 February, 2026
6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, in
the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab(supra) has quashed the
FIR under Section 174-A IPC stating that where the main complaint has
been withdrawn, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of
process of law. The relevant extract thereof is as under:-
Ashish Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 January, 2026
8. The similar view has also been taken by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Soni Kumar versus State of Punjab (supra) and
Deepak versus State of Haryana and another (supra).