Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)

Gaya Prasad And 3 Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 17 August, 2023

1. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.08.2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-5, Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No.443 of 2006 (Gaya Prasad and others Vs. State of U.P. and 02 others) and order dated 16.06.2006, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Musafirkhana in Case No.52/54 (Vishwanath Lal and others Vs. Mata Prasad and others).
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Ahmed - Full Document

Isham Lal And Others vs State Of Chhattisgarh 3 Cra/604/2017 ... on 5 March, 2020

1. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.08.2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-5, Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No.443 of 2006 (Gaya Prasad and others Vs. State of U.P. and 02 others) and order dated 16.06.2006, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Musafirkhana in Case No.52/54 (Vishwanath Lal and others Vs. Mata Prasad and others).
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 17 December, 1984

6. Upon due consideration of the pleadings and material on record as also the recital of the orders impugned as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1985 SC 472, Prakash Chand Sachdeva Vs. State and Another, AIR 1994 SC 1436, Jhummamal alias Devandas Vs. State of M.P. & others, AIR 1988 SC 1973, Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another, AIR 2000 SC 1504, Mohd. Shakir Vs. State of U.P., 2022 Live Law (SC) 727, M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 335 - Full Document

Jhummamal Alias Devandas vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 25 August, 1988

6. Upon due consideration of the pleadings and material on record as also the recital of the orders impugned as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1985 SC 472, Prakash Chand Sachdeva Vs. State and Another, AIR 1994 SC 1436, Jhummamal alias Devandas Vs. State of M.P. & others, AIR 1988 SC 1973, Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another, AIR 2000 SC 1504, Mohd. Shakir Vs. State of U.P., 2022 Live Law (SC) 727, M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 82 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Amresh Tiwari vs Lalta Prasad Dubey & Anr on 11 April, 2000

6. Upon due consideration of the pleadings and material on record as also the recital of the orders impugned as also taking note of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of Ram Sumer Puri Mahant Vs. State of U.P. & others, AIR 1985 SC 472, Prakash Chand Sachdeva Vs. State and Another, AIR 1994 SC 1436, Jhummamal alias Devandas Vs. State of M.P. & others, AIR 1988 SC 1973, Amresh Tiwari Vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another, AIR 2000 SC 1504, Mohd. Shakir Vs. State of U.P., 2022 Live Law (SC) 727, M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 161 - S N Variava - Full Document

Ganga Bux Singh vs Sukhdin on 8 October, 1958

v. Suresh Das, (2020) 1 SCC 1, Sri Siddeshwar Temple Trust Committee v. Sri Malingaraya Temple Charitable Trust, (2020) 18 SCC 417 and Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ganga Bux Singh Vs. Sukhdin, AIR 1959 All 141 on the issue according to which in given facts of the case proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. can be initiated even if the case before the civil court is pending, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Ganga Prasad And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar on 2 April, 1970

4. The order dated 16.06.2006, passed by the Pargana Magistrate, referred above, was challenged by means of the Criminal Revision No.443 of 2006 (Gaya Prasad and others Vs. State and 02 others). The revisional court taking note of the various aspects of the case found that the order of the Pargana Magistrate dated 16.06.2006 is liable to be affirmed and therefore, dismissed the criminal revision. The relevant portion of the revisional order 22.08.2006 reads as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - G K Mitter - Full Document
1   2 Next