Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Prem Harjit Singh & Another vs Nirmal Harjit Singh on 23 August, 2012 cites

M.A.Rumugam vs Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy on 7 November, 2008

Another aspect of the case is that under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the facts cannot be proved. It is a settled principle of law that those who plead exceptions must prove it. The burden of proof that this action was bonafide would, thus be on the petitioners alone. At this stage, in my opinion, it would be pre-mature to consider the material referred to in the petition by the petitioners. To Criminal Misc. No. 24889 of 2012 [6] arrive at a definite conclusion that there was no element of bad faith on the part of the petitioners in making the said complaints before the police authorities, evidence is required to be led. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a similar view in M.A. Rumugam V. Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy 2009(1) S.C.C. (Crl.) 245 in paras No. 19, 20 and 21 which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 48 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Gurmeet Kaur vs Lakhwinder Singh And Another on 3 August, 2009

By referring to the above exceptions, specifically, Exception Eighth, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the complaint is not maintainable and the summoning order is not sustainable. Consequently, the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are also not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of this Court in Kamlesh Kaur V. Lakhwinder Singh and another 2009(4) R.C.R.(Crl.)
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - K S Garewal - Full Document
1