Another of Shri justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra’s awesome judgments from Hon’ble Delhi High Court. If no cause of action occurred in the jurisdiction of a police, the police may register the case but should transfer the case to the police station with correct jurisdiction.
Similar to and based on Sonu Vs State, here also FIR was not quashed based on territorial jurisdiction but based on outcome of the Investigating Office’s enquiry, it can be transferred to respective police station.
Shri Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra has delivered this wonderful judgment, clearly affirming that as per settled principles of law, if a FIR quash was requested which was filed at a wrong jurisdiction, the duty of the police SHO is to transfer it to the police station where the correct jurisdiction holds.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
In another judgment, Delhi High Court has turned down the overt act of the Knife to grab hold of the property belonging to her father-in-law via permanent injunction.
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has produced this judgment which held that the right of residence of a woman in the property on which her husband has right, title or interest that the wife can claim residence and that, too, if no commensurate alternative is provided by the husband.
High Court of Delhi has given this judgment, where in a advocate was not selected for Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and she filed this interesting case.
A society which has earlier given NOC for Raam Leela in a park later on made a U turn and filed a Contempt of Court proceeding which was duly stuck down by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Lot of Perjury Judgments are cited in this Delhi High Court Order.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
In this Delhi High Court judgment, Justice V.K.Jain has held that Money Demanded after marriage are not in connection of Marriage.
Citing many landmark Perjury precedents, Justice J.R.Midha of Delhi High Court has rendered this judgment. This CrPC 340 judgment is under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. Since there was ample evidence for fraud on court, Police were directed to conduct preliminary inquiry.
A precedent from Supreme Court of India is available here, which is also relied upon in this instant judgment.
Citations: [2011 DRJ 121 328], [2010 CCR 4 442], [2010 DLT 174 214], [2011 RCR CRI 7 2111], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 4006]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83621866/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d95e4b014971117a12d
Bad Behavior has blocked 471 access attempts in the last 7 days.
