Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 118 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Mohinder Singh vs Gulwant Singh And Others on 17 December, 1991

S.Jayakumar vs Kepsikala on 20 December, 2011

15.The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1992) 2 SCC 213 between Mohinder Singh Vs. Gulwant Singh and others, is squarely applicable to the present case since the factum of marriage whether it is 1st marriage or the 2nd marriage so as to decide as to the offence committed under Section 494 I.P.C. has to be considered only at the time of trial. In the present case, the 2nd marriage said to have been solemnized was stated in the complaint and spoken to by the witness. Whether there was any marriage in between A1 and A2, during the life time of the respondent/complainant has to be determined only in a full pledged trial and not at the stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C. enquiry or in a petition for quashment of the complaint.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V P Karuppiah - Full Document

N.R. Pachouri vs Kishanlal Choudhary on 22 February, 2024

"18. The expression "sufficient ground" used in Sections 203, 204 and 209 means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. This interpretation of the provisions contained in Chapters XV and XVI CrPC finds adequate support from the judgments of this Court in Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia v. State of Bombay, Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar, Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B., Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan, Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh and Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd".
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Kishanlal Choudhary vs N.R. Pachori on 22 February, 2024

"18. The expression "sufficient ground" used in Sections 203, 204 and 209 means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. This interpretation of the provisions contained in Chapters XV and XVI CrPC finds adequate support from the judgments of this Court in Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia v. State of Bombay, Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar, Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B., Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan, Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh and Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd".
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Smt. Rohani Ahirwar vs Mukesh Ladiyai on 10 May, 2024

21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh [(1992) 2 SCC 213 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 361] in the following words: (SCC p. 217, para 11) "11. ... The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full-dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is 8 M.Cr.C.No.8052/2024 adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Amit Kumar Singh vs Arti on 24 March, 2021

21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh8 in the following words: (SCC p. 217, para 11) "11. ... The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full-dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code . To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry.""
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Mehta vs Smt. Geeta Mehta on 4 March, 2021

21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh8 in the following words: (SCC p. 217, para 11) "11. ... The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full-dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code . To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry.""
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next