Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Manish Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 July, 2023 cites

Swiss Timing Ltd. vs Cbi & Anr. on 5 March, 2012

2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that a case against the petitioner under Section 498A, 323 & 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered by Mahila Thana Bhopal vide Crime No. 50/2022. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that earlier also the petitioner was confronted with Look Out Circular (in short LOC) dated 02.05.2022, which was assailed by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 7614/2023,and ultimately, as the period of LOC was expired during pendency of the petition, the said petition was dismissed as infructuous. It is contended by the counsel for petitioner that by impugned order dated 10.05.2022, challan has been filed while declaring the petitioner to be absconding in complete violation of the provision of Section 105 of Cr.P.C. It is contended by the counsel that in terms of Section 105 of Cr.P.C. if any country or place outside India in respect of which arrangements have been made by the Central Government with the Government of such country or place for service or execution of summons or warrant in relation to criminal matters, it may send such summons or warrant in duplicate to such authority for transmission, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. It is contended by the counsel that in terms of the aforesaid provision, notification has been issued by the Central Government dated 04.12.2019. In terms of the aforesaid, notice and summons which are required to be issued under Section 105 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA Signing time: 8/3/2023 11:01:57 AM 3 Cr.P.C.are to be addressed to Under Secretary (Legal Cell) Internal Security to Divisional Ministry of Affairs, New Delhi. Accordingly, the said authority is further obliged to take initiative of affecting summons and notices upon the parties staying abroad. It is contended by learned counsel that without ensuring the compliance of Section 105 of Cr.P.C. as well as the notification, the impugned order has been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement delivered by Delhi High Court reported in ILR (2012) IV DELHI 234 (Swiss Timing Ltd. Vs. CBI & Anr.)
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - M Gupta - Full Document
1