Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)Joginder Kumar vs State Of U.P on 25 April, 1994
(7) Learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously argued that the applicants have been made target just to besmirch their reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicants by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicants has also relied upon the judgements in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque vs State of U.P. and another, 2008 Cri. LJ 1998, to buttress his contentions.
Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014
(8) In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the pith and core is that the police officer before arrest must put questions to himself, Why arrest?, Is it really required?, What purpose it will serve? What object it will achieve? If it is only after these questions are addressed and one or other conditions, as enumerated above, are satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before the arrest the police office should have a reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence.
Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1