Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)

Zee News Ltd. vs State & Anr. on 25 April, 2016

Therefore,   as   per   the   mandate   of   superior   courts above   said   four   conditions   must   be   satisfied   in   case   the application u/s 210 CrPC is to be allowed and in Zee News case application u/s 210 CrPC was dismissed as the condition as laid down in citation 210 (2) CrPC was not satisfied with liberty to the petitioner   (therein)   to   invoke   the   said   provision   at   appropriate stage.
Delhi High Court Cites 127 - Cited by 5 - V Sanghi - Full Document

U.P. S.R.T.C. And Ors. vs Har Narain Singh And Ors. on 14 August, 1997

In   Har   Narain   (supra)   it   was observed that as long as the fact under investigation by the police include   the   fact   mentioned   in   the   complaint   case,   then   it   will make   no   difference   if   the   police   come   to   the   conclusion   that offence not mentioned in the complaint have been committed by 12/15                                                                                         CR No.23/2017 S. K. Kaushik Vs. State & Ors.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh 107 ... on 28 November, 2017

(iii) complaint title S. K. Kaushik Vs. Parma Ram in which FIR bearing   no.0249/17,   u/s   420/468/471/406/448/120­B/34   IPC   has been lodged against Parmaram, Vikas Singh and Santosh Devi is the same.Therefore, by invoking the provision of section 210 CrPC all these cases be tried together and till the investigation by the police is pending, the proceeding of the trial u/s 138 N.I. Act be stayed,.     It   has   been   further   submitted   that   ld   trial   court   has wrongly   dismissed   the   application   through   impugned   order without appreciating the legal preposition laid down by superior courts so far as interpretation of section 210 CrPC is concerned.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 870 - P K Mishra - Full Document
1