SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(UK) 234

PANKAJ PUROHIT
Satish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vipul Sharma.
For the Respondents: B.P.S. Mer, Aditya Singh.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

1. This C482 application is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2015, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 2014, Satish Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar Singh and Others, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the criminal revision affirmed the judgment and order dated 05.10.2013, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 163 of 2012, Satish Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar Singh and Others, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar while accepting the Final Report No. 6 of 2012, dated 30.03.2012, submitted by the Investigating Officer took cognizance against the applicant-Satish Kumar under Section 182 IPC, on the recommendation, so made by the Investigating Officer and issued summons to the applicant to face the trial fixing a date of appearance on 31.10.2013.

2. The facts, which resulted into filing of the present C482 application, in short, are that the first information report was lodged by applicant-Satish Kumar on the basis of which, a chick FIR was lodged in Police Station SIDCUL Rudrapur, District Udham S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top