Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (3.50 seconds)
State Bank Of India vs Punjab National Bank on 18 December, 2018 cites

S.P. Sharma vs National Capital Territory Of Delhi & ... on 18 September, 1998

Ld.   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   also   placed   reliance   on judgment titled as "S.P.Sharma Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi CR No. 510/18                                                                            7 of 10       07.01.2017 &   Ors."   1998(47)  DRJ(DB)    wherein,   it  is   held   that   "if  the   complaint discloses commission of cogniable offence  then the police has to register the   FIR".
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 27 - N G Nandi - Full Document

Manoj Sharma Manu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 13 April, 2017

Ld.   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   also   placed   reliance   on judgment titled as "Ramesh Awasthi Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" Crl.M.C. 666/2017   wherein,   it   is   held   that   "Magistrate   is   not   empowered   to direction registration of FIR and investigation to an officer in­charge of a police station beyond its territorial jurisdiction".
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 26 - M Gupta - Full Document

Lee Kun Hee & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 1 February, 2012

Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment titled as "Lee Kun Hee & Ors. Vs. State CR No. 510/18                                                                            6 of 10       07.01.2017 of U.P. & Ors." AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1007 wherein, it is held that "in the instant case the complainant had sent the goods from India. The bill   of   exchange   was   received   in   India.   On   its   dishonour   the complainant had made communication with accused from India. Thus, it cannot be said that actions attributed to accused had no connectivity to   India.   Section   179   of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   vests jurisdiction for inquiry and trial in a Court, within whose jurisdiction anything has been done with reference to an alleged crime, and also where the consequence of the criminal action ensues. Section 181(4) of the  Code of Criminal Procedure leaves no room for any doubt, that culpability   is   relatable   even   to   the   place   at   which   consideration   is required to be returned or accounted for. Finally, Section 182 of the Code   of   Criminal   Procedure     postulates   that   for   offences   of   which cheating is a component, if the alleged act of deception is shown to have been   committed,   through   communication/letters/messages,   the   Court within   whose   jurisdiction   the   said   communications/letters/messages were sent (were received), would be competent to inquire into and try the   same".
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 478 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Purushottamdas Dalmia vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 April, 1961

8. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment titled   as   "Purushottamdas   Dalmia   Vs.   State   of  West   Bengal"   1961(2) Cri.L.J. 728 wherein, it is held that "the court having jurisdiction to try the   offence   of   conspiracy,   has   also   jurisdiction   to   try   an   offence constituted  by the overt acts which are committed in pursuance of the conspiracy beyond its jurisdiction".
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 79 - R Dayal - Full Document
1