Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)
Pardeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 14 May, 2020 cites

Dharambir vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2013

Moreover, while summoning the accused the trial Court has taken into consideration statement of complainant-respondent No. 2, Rajinder Kumar, Sarpanch recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 07-06-2020 01:32:16 ::: CRR No. 1354 of 2019 (O&M) -3- CRR No. 1574 of 2019 (O&M) 29.12.2017 (Annexure R-2/1) It is further argued that the present FIR is a counter-blast to the fact that construction work of Brahman Dharamshala was stopped on the application moved by the father of Sandeep alias Deepa (one of the accused) to the Deputy Commissioner and at the Chief Minister Window, and resultantly the grant of Rs. 7.00 lacs had to be returned back. Not only this, the father of petitioner Sandeep alias Deepa gave a complaint to the Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj against respondent No. 2-Sarpanch and also to BDPO for preparing the record on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. A suit for recovery of Rs. 2.00 lacs, filed by Jasmer Singh-father of petitioner Pardeep Kumar, is also pending against Devi Dayal, witness in the present FIR, and the other persons had lodged FIR No. 356 dated 10.9.2014 under Sections 376-D, 365, 452, 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Thanesar against Jasmer Singh father of petitioner Pardeep Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dharambir versus State of Haryana 2018(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 244 wherein it has been held that supplementary statement cannot be treated as part of FIR.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 18 - N K Sanghi - Full Document
1   2 Next