Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. V. P. Sharma vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 27 October, 2009

Vp Sharma vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 July, 2013

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case for giving rise to this present appeal are that the appellant/convict was challaned vide challan V.P.Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) CA NO. 45/13 Page No.1 of 4 no.49987 on the allegation that on 08.03.2013 at 8.35 p.m at Rajokari under Flyover, the appellant was driving vehicle no.DL 9SX 0960 in drunken condition. The content of the alcohol was tested through breath alcohol analyser instrument and it was found to be 440 mg/100 ml. The appellant was challaned and he was directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court. On 15.05.2013 the appellant appeared before Ld. Trial court and he voluntarily pleaded his guilt. Therefore, Ld. MM convicted him for the offence punishable u/s 185 MV Act. & u/s 146/196 MV Act. After considering the facts of the case, Ld. MM sentenced the appellant as above. The appellant paid the fine before the Ld. Trial court. Thereafter, on an application moved on behalf of the appellant, the sentence was suspended till filing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of sentence, the appellant has preferred this present appeal for setting aside the said order on sentence.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anurag Sharma vs The State on 23 March, 2011

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Magistrate was not wrong while he refused to direct the police for registration of FIR u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as the evidence was available with the complainant and hence in view of the judgment ''2009 X AD (DELHI) 701 titled as V.P.Sharma (Dr.) Vs. State and others'' ( supra), the Ld. Magistrate did not commit any irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order. As such, the Revision Petition filed by the Revisionist is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Ld. M.M is upheld.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Lall vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Another on 13 September, 2010

4. Reference can be made to another judgment of the Delhi High Court in V.P.Sharma versus State (NCT of Delhi) 164 (2009) DLT 500 wherein it has been held that the Magistrate has to apply his mind and then pass appropriate order while deciding the application under Section 156(3) of the Code. Although such power vested with the magistrate enables the investigating agency to collect the evidence which may not possibly be led by the accused, however, care must be taken so that the complainant may not be able to misuse the provisions by registration of FIR, which has not been registered earlier.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - S Khanna - Full Document

Criminal Revision No. 23/13 vs M/S Today Homes And Infrastructure on 1 August, 2013

5. On the said application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Ld. MM called for "Action taken report" from the SHO concerned which was filed inter alia suggesting that it was a civil dispute and Ld. MM vide impugned order dated 06.11.2012 dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. primarily on the ground that the dispute between the parties appears to be of civil nature relying upon decision in M/s Skiper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State (2001) IV AD (Delhi) and case of Dr. V. P. Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) X AD Delhi 701, However having dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the petitioners/complainants were allowed to lead pre­summoning Arun Saxena v. Today Homes Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 6 of 14 7 evidence to show that there are grounds to proceed against the accused persons.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next