Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Himanshu Pal @ Pankaj vs State Of Chhattisgahr 34 ... on 11 December, 2018

Yogendra Pal vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 17 November, 2025

5. The instant application is disposed of with a direction to learned 1st Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur to decide the Complaint Case No. 41 of 2021, (Yogendra Pal Vs. Kuldeep Yadav and others), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 323, 504, 506 and 307 IPC, P.S. Lalganj, Mirzapur, District Mirzapur, expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Waris Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 November, 2021

04. Counsel further submitted that so far as the age of the 3 CRA No.1506/2016 prosecutrix is concerned, no evidence has been led by proving any relevant documents in this behalf, as the prosecutrix's scholar register (Ex.P/12) and her mark sheet (Ex.P/13) have been proved which in themselves do not prove the age of the prosecutrix beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of the birth certificate or any other relevant documents. It is further submitted that even Dr. Seema Pathak (P.W.6) in para -13 of her statement has admitted that as the prosecutrix have 28 teeth her age can also be of 17 to 18 years. So far as the FSL report which has been procured subsequently by the Office of Advocate General is concerned, it is submitted that since it has been filed subsequently hence it is not relevant and cannot be made the basis to convict the appellant. It is also submitted that there is no DNA profiling of the samples received and this court, in the the case of Pankaj vs. State of M.P. In Cr.A. No.8202/2018 has already emphasized the importance of the DNA report and thus in the absence of any DNA report the appellant cannot be convicted. Counsel has also submitted that the samples which were seized from the prosecutrix and the appellant were not properly sealed and this fact has been admitted by Harinarayan Yadav (P.W.2).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Himanshu Verma vs Chandni Verma on 1 July, 2025

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the Order dated 10.02.2025 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Impugned Order') passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-01, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'Family Court'), whereby the application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter Signature Not Verified MAT.APP.(F.C.) 163/2025 Page 1 of 10 Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:01.07.2025 17:26:41 referred to as 'HMA') filed by the respondent/wife for grant of interim maintenance in HMA No. 1575/2023, titled Himanshu Verma v. Chandni Verma, was allowed, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application till the pendency of the case, to the respondent/wife.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - N Chawla - Full Document

Shri Sanjay Anandray Bhatt ,, Ahmedabad vs The Income Tax Officer,Ward-14(3),, ... on 23 September, 2019

-Shri Himanshu V. Patel C.A. appeared and filed part details. No proper explanation upto the satisfaction filed regarding credit entries in the bank accounts of his daughter Falguniben and in his name. No complete details of family members given. No details regarding income and Agriculture income given. Details of assets and liabilities statement was not given. In view of the above you are finally requested to submit following details/ explanation.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satendra Singh And 4 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 14 January, 2020

The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding in pursuance of summoning order dated 13.09.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Etah in Complaint Case No. 69/2019 (Om Pal Vs. Satendra & others) under sections 147, 352, 323/149, 354, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Nidhauli Kalan, District Etah pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Etah.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V K Singh - Full Document

Mahima Gupta @ Jyotishacharya Mahima ... vs Himanshu Gupta on 10 August, 2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the records, we consider it appropriate to transfer HMA No.04/2023 titled as “Himanshu Gupta Vs. Mahima Gupta @ Jyotishacharya Mahima Gupta” pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court Dehradun, Uttarakhand to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Rohini Court Complex, District North West, Delhi. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.08.14 Records shall be sent by the Court where 16:02:38 IST Reason: proceedings are pending to the transferee Court Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 522/2023 1 promptly and without any delay.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shivkumar And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 July, 2025

The present application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 261 of 2024, (Pankaj Kumar v. Shivkumar and Others), under Sections 452, 323, 504, 427 of I.P.C., Police Station- Delhi Gate, District- Aligarh, as well as cognizance/ summoning order 17.3.2025 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, District Aligarh..
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S K Pachori - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next