Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 222 (2.08 seconds)
Documents citing Rajesh Kumar vs State Th:Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 September, 2011

Rajesh @ Raju vs The State on 17 January, 2013

2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 171/12 under section 320/509/34 IPC was lodged by the complainant on 25.07.2012 and the petitioner and his father were bailed out on CR No. 155/12 1 17.01.2013 Rajesh @ Raju Vs The State CR No. 155/12 26.07.2012 but subsequqently provisions of SC/ST Act were added in the said FIR and father of the petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody, thereafter the chargesheet was filed in the court of competent jurisdiction.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Rajesh S/O Sh. Shiv Ram Dass vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi Through Its :­ on 30 November, 2018

7. Defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 filed their separate Suit No.: 8953/16 Rajesh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi page no. 3 of 13 written statements.  Defendant no. 1 took preliminary objections that suit   is   not   maintainable.   There   is   no   cause   of   action   in   favour   of plaintiff.   He has suppressed material facts.   Plaintiff does not have locus standi and the suit is barred by limitation.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Rajesh Kumar vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 August, 2012

4. The bone of contention in the appeal is the identity of the appellant/convict as the one who caused the accident while driving the aforesaid truck and the causing of the said accident due to rash and negligent driving by him. The case of the accused as per the suggestions given to the prosecution witnesses and statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC, is that he was not driving the said truck on the date of incident and had not caused the accident. As per the case of the prosecution, there is only one eye witness PW7 Surender Kumar and that the said accident took place on 20.6.1998 at 10.15 pm and no eye witness was found at the spot or at the hospital on the day of accident as admitted by the PW11 (IO) in his cross examination and the said eye witness came into the picture by reaching PS Dhaula Kuan on 22.6.1998 (two days after the incident) and the IO recorded his statement. PW7 (eye witness) in his cross examination has admitted that he was running a CA No. 20/12. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State. Page No. 2 of 10.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar vs The State on 22 November, 2022

5. It is further contended that with respect to the application seeking further investigation in the case FIR No. 755/14 filed by the complainant Usha Rani, notice was not issued to the revisionist, nor any copy of the application was furnished, thus Cr. Rev No.89/22 Page 2 of 9 Rajesh Kumar vs. State depriving, the revisionist an opportunity of being heard. Further, the application for further investigation was not forwarded by the Ld. APP for the State. Accordingly, the complainant Usha Rani has no locus standi to move an application to seek further investigation in the case.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next