Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)

Ajay Katiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2017

11. The said order also refers the order 16/08/2017 passed by the State Women Commission which given clean chit to the petitioner, although the said orders are not with the petitioner but reference of the said order finds place by the committee members in their report dated 30th January, 2018 therefore, as per the guidelines, in-house inquiry was also conducted in which petitioner stand exonerated. The said inquiry also refers the fact of an enquiry conducted by the State Women Commission therefore, twice inquiries were conducted on HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 6 M.Cr.C. No.38047/2018 (Ajay Katiyar Vs. State of M.P. and Another) same set of allegations, therefore, it appears that respondent No.2 tried to create a situation for implication of the applicant/ petitioner on false pretext. Here it appears that false allegations have been levelled by respondent No.2.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lovely Salhotra vs State Nct Of Delhi on 10 April, 2017

Even the Apex Court in the case of D.P. Gulati, Manager Accounts, M/s JetkingInfotrain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, AIR 2015 SC 3760 as well as Lovely Salhotra & Another Vs. State NCT of Delhi & Another, AIR 2017 SC 2595 have held that those complaints which are filed as counter blast and which are for pressurizing the accused do not deserve credence and resultantly quashed the FIR.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 114 - Full Document
1   2 Next