Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 281 (1.11 seconds)Suresh B. Matali vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 June, 2022
It has been similarly held in the case of
Page No.40
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
and Others (Supra) and Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana
(Supra). Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 is relevant in this
case, which is as follows:-
Hira Lal Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 June, 2022
It has been similarly held in the case of
Page No.40
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
and Others (Supra) and Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana
(Supra). Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 is relevant in this
case, which is as follows:-
Smt. Neelima Belsaria vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 June, 2022
It has been similarly held in the case of
Page No.40
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
and Others (Supra) and Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana
(Supra). Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 is relevant in this
case, which is as follows:-
Koushal Kumar Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 June, 2022
It has been similarly held in the case of
Page No.40
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
and Others (Supra) and Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana
(Supra). Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 is relevant in this
case, which is as follows:-
Bali Nagwanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 June, 2022
It has been similarly held in the case of
Page No.40
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
and Others (Supra) and Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana
(Supra). Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 is relevant in this
case, which is as follows:-
Siyaram Kurre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 June, 2022
It has been similarly held in the case of
Page No.40
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
and Others (Supra) and Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana
(Supra). Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 is relevant in this
case, which is as follows:-
Bali Nagwanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 June, 2022
It has been similarly held in the case of
Page No.40
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
and Others (Supra) and Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana
(Supra). Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 is relevant in this
case, which is as follows:-
Smt. Neelima Belsaria vs Bastar Railway Private Limited on 28 June, 2022
It has been similarly held in the case of
Page No.40
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma
and Others (Supra) and Rameshwar Vs. State of Haryana
(Supra). Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 is relevant in this
case, which is as follows:-
Ravindra Kumar Verma And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 April, 2025
11. Considering the fact as well as on perusal of record, it appears that no heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or other offences, which may affect the society in general, are made out and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute through compromise which has been duly verified by the court below as well as in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Another; (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Another (2014) 6 SCC 477, State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688 and State of M.P. vs. Dhruv Gurjar, AIR 2017 SC 1106, theentire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 93 of 2014 (State Vs. Ravindra Kumar and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 15 of 2013 u/s 498-A, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Mahila Thana, District- Basti,as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 21.03.2014 and impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 09.04.2014 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 09, Basti on the basis of compromise dated 19.02.2021 pending before learned FTC (CAW), Basti, are hereby quashed.