Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 469 (3.07 seconds)
Documents citing Dilawar Singh vs State Of Delhi on 5 September, 2007

Rahis vs State on 6 July, 2022

"397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.--If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.", and are as observed in Dilawar Singh (supra) in paragraph 19 reproduced elsewhere hereinabove with it having been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein that as noted in "Phool Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration" (1975) 1 SCC 797, the term offender under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is confined to be the offender who uses any deadly weapon and the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh (supra) vide paragraph 20 thereof, which reads to the effect:-
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Gurmeet Ram Rahim vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 4 October, 2018

Mr. Sumeet Goel, learned counsel for respondent-CBI has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the 6 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 14-10-2018 01:40:20 ::: CRR No.2740 of 2018 -7- ground that there is limited scope in revision to challenge order of framing of charge. He submits that the trial Court has passed a very detailed reasoned order by mentioning facts and circumstances of the case and no interference is required. The investigation was conducted by the CBI under the directions issued by this Court. The delay in lodging the case cannot be considered as necessary factor in such circumstances. The judgment in Dilawar Singh's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Every case is to be considered as per its own facts and circumstances.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - D Chaudhary - Full Document

Moseen @Rahul vs State on 2 September, 2023

(x) Because there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in filling the complaint in as much as the alleged incident was of 21.02.2012, wherein the first alleged complaint which was apparently lodged by Respondent No. 2 with the DCP, South East was on 22.02.2012 and the complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC. was filed on 10.04.2012. Moreover, the Respondent No. 2 had filed to give any explanation as to why the case was filed directly before the SHO, PS Jaitpur and as to why the complaint was filed before Ld. MM after an inordinate delay of almost 50 days. In absence of any explanation about the delay as is evident from the perusal of the FIR, only an adverse inference could have been drawn against Respondent No. 2 as it clearly raises suspicion in the concocted version of Respondent No. 2. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi", 2007 (12) SSC 641 that it is cardinal principal of law in criminal matters to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint and that the Court always view the allegation with suspicious. In the present case also, the action of the Respondent No. 2, on the face of it, are fraught with absolute malice and are nothing, but nefarious and the unexplained delay clearly shows the mala fide case. It's Crl.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nitesh Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 September, 2023

(x) Because there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in filling the complaint in as much as the alleged incident was of 21.02.2012, wherein the first alleged complaint which was apparently lodged by Respondent No. 2 with the DCP, South East was on 22.02.2012 and the complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC. was filed on 10.04.2012. Moreover, the Respondent No. 2 had filed to give any explanation as to why the case was filed directly before the SHO, PS Jaitpur and as to why the complaint was filed before Ld. MM after an inordinate delay of almost 50 days. In absence of any explanation about the delay as is evident from the perusal of the FIR, only an adverse inference could have been drawn against Respondent No. 2 as it clearly raises suspicion in the concocted version of Respondent No. 2. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi", 2007 (12) SSC 641 that it is cardinal principal of law in criminal matters to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint and that the Court always view the allegation with suspicious. In the present case also, the action of the Respondent No. 2, on the face of it, are fraught with absolute malice and are nothing, but nefarious and the unexplained delay clearly shows the mala fide case. It's Crl.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Patel vs State on 17 June, 2011

21. The three aforesaid cases have been cited on behalf of the parties. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Dilawr Singh v. State of Delhi [(2007)12 SCC 641] where the difference in the investigative procedure in Chapters XII and XV of the Code has been recognized and in that case this Court also appears to have taken the view that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of an offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code and in doing so, he is not required to examine the complainant since he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein for the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - A S Dave - Full Document

Mewa Lal Bhargav vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 22 January, 2021

In Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi [(2007) 12 SCC 641 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 330] , this Court ruled thus: (SCC p. 647, para 18) "18. ...''11. The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complainant because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.'
Allahabad High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Srinivas Prabhakar Hooli vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2017

14. We have also perused decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilawar Singh Vs. State : 25 : of Delhi reported in AIR 2007 SC 323 and in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2014)2 SCC 1, with regard to the principles enunciated therein regarding the importance of registration of an information as FIR at the earliest point of time.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C Rl. O. P.(Md) N O. 1 3 6 8 1 O F 2 0 1 8 vs Http://Www.Judis.Nic.In on 5 July, 2018

In Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi [(2007) 12 SCC 641], this Court ruled thus: (SCC p. 647, para 18) “18. …‘11. The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing http://www.judis.nic.in 53 illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complainant because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.’*”
Madras High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next