Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 2313 (3.06 seconds)
Documents citing Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014

Deepak Singh @ Subham Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. A.C.S Prin. Secy. ... on 13 June, 2025

25. Similarly, the submission on behalf of the private respondents herein that after the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court there is much progress in the trial and therefore at this stage power under Section 319CrPC may not be exercised is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance and cannot be accepted. As per the settled proposition of law and as observed by this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] , the powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised at any stage before the final conclusion of the trial. Even otherwise it is required to be noted that at the time when the application under Section 319CrPC was given only one witness was examined and examination-in-chief of PW 1 was recorded and while the cross-examination of PW 1 was going on, application under Section 319CrPC was given which came to be rejected by the learned trial court. The order passed by the learned trial court is held to be unsustainable. If the learned trial court would have summoned the private respondents herein at that stage such a situation would not have arisen. Be that as it may, as observed herein powers under Section 319CrPC can be exercised at any stage from commencing of the trial and recording of evidence/deposition and before the conclusion of the trial at any stage.
Allahabad High Court Cites 125 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Asad Ali @ Munna And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 9 August, 2024

and subsequently, in the case of Rajesh and Others (supra) in para 6.8 held that "Considering the law laid down by this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] and the observations and findings referred to and reproduced hereinabove, it emerges that (i) the Court can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned and the Court need not wait till the cross-examination of such a witness and the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination; and (ii) a person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC, provided from the evidence (may be on the basis of the evidence collected in the form of statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned), it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial."
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Vinay Kumar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy, ... on 14 August, 2024

The purport of the order of the High Court is that unless the evidence of other prosecution witnesses (eyewitnesses) is recorded, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be considered. From the bare reading of the order dated 16th August 2018, it is apparent that the High Court did not find evidence of PW-1 as sufficient to confirm the order passed under Section 319. 6. Regarding the extent and degree of inquiry required for deciding an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab1 will be relevant. In para 95 of the said judgment, it is stated thus: "95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 CrPC, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Mohammad Mujif Alias Mohammad Mujib vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And ... on 12 August, 2025

and subsequently, in the case of Rajesh and Others (supra) in para 6.8 held that "Considering the law laid down by this Court in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] and the observations and findings referred to and reproduced hereinabove, it emerges that (i) the Court can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned and the Court need not wait till the cross-examination of such a witness and the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination; and (ii) a person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC, provided from the evidence (may be on the basis of the evidence collected in the form of statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned), it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial."
Allahabad High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - S Lavania - Full Document

Dharmveer vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 May, 2024

As aforesaid witnesses have already deposed before Court below, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon their statements as recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Revisionist will have an opportunity to contradict the aforesaid witnesses with their own previous statements during the course of trial. Even if, the Investigating Officer has not been examined before passing the impugned order, same shall not vitiate the order impugned. Revisionist will still have an opportunity to establish his innocence before Court below by cross examining the Investigating Officer. Moreover, in view of the law laid down by the Five Judges Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, it is not necessary to defer the hearing of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. till the Investigating Officer is examined, as a prospective accused can be summoned on the basis of statement-in-chief of one prosecution witness. The plea as to whether the revisionist is a juvenile is by itself not so sufficient, so as to infer the innocence of the revisionist or that the complicity of revisionist in the crime in question is not established. Even if, the revisionist is a juvenile yet he can be summoned to face trial. The only difference will be that if revisionist is declared to be a juvenile then in that eventuality, he shall be tried by the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. On the above conspectus, it is thus urged that since no illegality has been committed by court below in passing the order impugned nor the same suffers from any legal infirmity, therefore, no good ground exists to interfere in present revision. Consequently, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 0 - R Misra - Full Document

Ramswroop And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 November, 2022

In all the cases referred to above, Court meticulously examined the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in the light of tests laid down by Apex Court in Hardeep Singh (Supra) and S.Mohammed Ispahani (Supra) and after undertaking aforesaid exercise proceeded to decide whether on the basis of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, prospective accused could be summoned or not.
Allahabad High Court Cites 90 - Cited by 1 - R Misra - Full Document

Smt. Alka vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 May, 2022

In such circumstances, there is no justification for summoning the appellants even under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also pertinent to point out that upon completion of investigation, the investigating officer felt that no offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out. Charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable only under Section 302 IPC against Chanchal alias Babita. As held in the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] , for summoning an accused under Section 319 CrPC it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity which is lacking in the present case. The trial court and the High Court, in our considered view, has not examined the matter in the light of the well-settled principles and the impugned order is liable to be set aside."
Allahabad High Court Cites 74 - Cited by 3 - R Misra - Full Document

Mahendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 September, 2022

Although, the High Court has not adverted to the test laid down by the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh[Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] nor has given any cogent reasons for exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, but for our satisfaction, we have looked into the evidence, which has come on record before the trial court as statements of PW 3 and PW 4. PW 3 is mother of the victim, who has clearly stated that her daughter has informed that she was abducted by the appellants and Natuji, who had taken her to the Morbi in the vehicle of Labhuji. The statement of the mother of the victim was a hearsay statement and could not have been relied for proceeding against the appellants. Now, coming to the statement of the victim, PW 4, she has only stated that Natuji, the accused had come along with his three friends, i.e. appellants and she was taken in the jeep to Morbi. She does not even allege complicity of the appellants in the offence. Her further statement was that she was taken to Morbi in the jeep driven by Labhuji and subsequently was taken to Modasa from Morbi in the jeep of Labhuji which also could not furnish any basis to proceed against the appellants. The mere fact that the jeep, in which she was taken to Modasa, the appellants were also present cannot be treated to be any allegation of complicity of the appellants in the offence. The observations of the trial court while rejecting the application holding that the application appears to be filed with mala fide intention, has not even been adverted to by the High Court."
Allahabad High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next