cites: 73102123 doctypes: judgments

Kapil Gupta vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 10 August, 2022

(viii) The APP's objection that the decision in Madanlal (supra) was not taken into account in Kapil Gupta (supra) may not be relevant, considering Madanlal (supra) was in completely different circumstances, post-conviction.

Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 31 - B R Gavai - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Another vs Bhajan Lal And Another on 6 August, 2013

The Court in relying upon the decision in State of Haryana & Anr. v. Bhajan Lal & Anr. (supra) quashed the proceedings.

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - R Bindal - Full Document

Bitu Yadav @ Vikas Yadav vs State (Nct Of Delhi ) & Anr. on 7 September, 2020

(vi) In Bitu Yadav @ Vikas Yadav (supra) of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the FIR was quashed and the prosecutrix having preferred an affidavit before the Court stating that she had made the complaint due to some misunderstanding and wanted to put a quietus to the matter.

Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 8 - S K Kait - Full Document

State Of M.P vs Madanlal on 1 July, 2015

(viii) The APP's objection that the decision in Madanlal (supra) was not taken into account in Kapil Gupta (supra) may not be relevant, considering Madanlal (supra) was in completely different circumstances, post-conviction.

Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 79 - D Misra - Full Document

Lalit Kumar Vats vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 4 December, 2020

(iv) This Court in Lalit Kumar (supra) where the prosecutrix appeared in Court and stated that the FIR was lodged out of anger since she and the petitioner had an altercation and also filed an affidavit, the Court considered it fit to quash the said FIR.

Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - S K Kait - Full Document

Ajeet Singh Verma @ Ajeet Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 14 March, 2023

(ii) In Ajeet Singh (supra), the Court though dealing with a situation of solemnisation of marriage of accused and prosecutrix post an allegation under Section 376 IPC, on a false promise of marriage, the Court noted that the relationship was a consensual relationship which culminated in marriage and, therefore, "no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant".

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Narender Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 August, 2013

Since no one had appeared for the prosecutrix, the Court appointed an Amicus Curiae who had a conversation with respondent No.2 and confirmed that the respondent No.2 had given her voluntary statement without any coercion or duress. The Court noted the decision in Narender Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 which formed the basis of the objection by the State and in this regard the Court noted as under:

Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - R Bahri - Full Document

Suresh Garodia vs The State Of Assam on 29 September, 2022

(iii) In Suresh Garodia (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with an allegation under Section 376 IPC where there was an extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bank Of Baroda Main Branch R.O.S.A.R.B. ... vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 18 November, 2022

(vii) Reference was also made to Supreme Court's decision in Haji Iqbal alia Bala (supra) where the Court notes as under, in relation to quashing of FIRs in exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results