Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.29 seconds)
Rajeev @ Rajesh Sehgal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 9 July, 2025 cites

State Of U.P. vs Dharmendra And 3 Ors. on 25 November, 2021

21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by this Court in the case of co-accused Dharmendra Goel, as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that the effect and operation of the framing of charge order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions/Special Judge, POCO (Second), Gautam Budh Nagar in Session Trial No.559 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Dharmendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No.202 of 2018, Under Section 306, 354, 506 of I.P.C. and sections 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sector 24 at Police Station Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar shall remain stayed during the pendency of present criminal revision.
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dharmendra Goyal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 March, 2023

Subsequent to above order, the discharge application filed by aforementioned accused was again rejected by Court below, vide order dated 26.06.2023. Against aforesaid order, aforementioned accused has again approached this Court by means of Criminal Revision No. 3886 of 2023 (Dharmendra Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and Another), wherein an interim order dated 02.08.2023 was passed by this Court. For ready reference, the same is reproduced herein under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R B Singh - Full Document

Rajeev Sehgal @ Boby Sehgal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 February, 2021

16. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionst, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, Mr. Radheshyam Yadav, the learned counsel representing first informant-opposite party-2 in Criminal Revision No. 2337 of 2023 (Rajeev @ Rajesh Sehgal Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) and upon perusal of records, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - V Varma - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March, 1977

(iii). A Two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Others, (2011) 12 SCC 437, was considering the question as to what are the grounds on which, the High Court can quash the proceedings, the Bench referred to the earlier judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy (Supra) in paragraph 10 of the report. It, thereafter, referred to various other judgments of the Supreme Court on the point and then anallyzed the facts of the case. The Court ultimately expressed itself in paragraphs 31 and 32. Accordingly, paragraphs 31 and 32 of the report are reproduced herein below;-
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 1534 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Century Spinning And Manufacturing Co. ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 1971

"10. On the other hand, the decisions cited. by learned counsel for the respondents in Vadilal Panchaly. D.D. Gha- digaonkar(1) and Cen-tarS, Spinning & Manufacturing Co. v. State of Maharashtra(2) show that it is wrong to say that at the stage of flaming charges the court cannot apply. its judicial mind to the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As observed in the latter case, the order framing a charge affects a person's liberty substantially and therefore it is the duty of the court to consider judi- cially whether the material warrants the framing of the charge. It cannot blindly accept the decision of the prose- cution that the accused be. asked to face a trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 160 - I D Dua - Full Document

R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960

"13. Though a criminal complaint lodged before the court under the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure or an FIR lodged in the police station under Chapter XII of the Code has to be brought to its logical conclusion in accordance with the procedure prescribed, power has been conferred under Section 482 of the Code to interdict such a proceeding in the event the institution/continuance of the criminal proceeding amounts to an abuse of the process of court. An early discussion of the law in this regard can be found in the decision of this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239] wherein the parameters of exercise of the inherent power vested by Section 561-A of the repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, 1973) had been laid down in the following terms: (AIR p. 869, para 6)
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 15811 - J C Shah - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors on 11 March, 1997

In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and Others [(1997) 4 SCC 393] it was held that at Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. stage the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 243 - Full Document

Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 28 September, 1978

11. The Court has delved into the records and finds that subsequent to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani (Supra), a similar issue cropped up for consideration before Apex Court in Satish Mehra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2012) 13 SCC 614, wherein the Court has observed that the veracity of the proceedings can be examined more appropriately by the Court after the charges have been framed against an accused. Though this judgment is a Two Judges bench judgment, but the Court has referred to two earlier Three Judges Bench judgment, which are similar to the controversy involved in the matter headed by Two Judges Bench. Observations made by the Court in paragraphs 13, 14 and 19 of the report are relevant for the controversy in hand and accordingly, the same are reproduced herein below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 111 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu vs Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors on 29 July, 2011

(iii). A Two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Others, (2011) 12 SCC 437, was considering the question as to what are the grounds on which, the High Court can quash the proceedings, the Bench referred to the earlier judgment in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy (Supra) in paragraph 10 of the report. It, thereafter, referred to various other judgments of the Supreme Court on the point and then anallyzed the facts of the case. The Court ultimately expressed itself in paragraphs 31 and 32. Accordingly, paragraphs 31 and 32 of the report are reproduced herein below;-
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 277 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Dharmendra Singh & Anr on 21 September, 1999

"1. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 16.08.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act (1st), Court No.16 Gautam Buddha Nagar in Special Trial No. 559 of 2018 (State vs. Dharmendra and others), Crime No. 202 of 2018, under Sections 306, 354, 506 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Sector-24 Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, whereby the application of revisionist-accused for discharge has been rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 134 - Full Document
1   2 Next