Mr. Naresh Jain, for the applicant/appellant No.1. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent/State. Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, for the complainant.
—–
For Full text / Download LogIn with Punjab Law Reporter Subscription
—–
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( II of 1974) S. 389 – Applicants case does fall within the parameters laid down by this Court in ‘Dharampal v. State of Haryana’, 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 600 but it is trite that the directions contained in Dharampal’s case (supra) are only in the nature of guidelines and the same should not be observed as an invariable rule. ‘Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar’, (2020) 2 SCC 118, referred.
- Log In
- Home
- A
- B
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- H
- I
- J
- L
- M
- N
- O
- P
- R
- S
- S
- Sale of Goods Act
- Sarfaesi
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
- Service Matters
- Service of orders on a government servant
- Sexual Offence
- Special Marriage Act, 1954
- Specific Performance
- Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Stamp Act, 1899
- Stamp duty
- Stay
- Suit for declaration / possession
- Succession Act
- Suit for recovery of Money
- T
- V
- W
- Log In
- Home
- A
- B
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- H
- I
- J
- L
- M
- N
- O
- P
- R
- S
- S
- Sale of Goods Act
- Sarfaesi
- Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992
- Service Matters
- Service of orders on a government servant
- Sexual Offence
- Special Marriage Act, 1954
- Specific Performance
- Specific Relief Act, 1963
- Stamp Act, 1899
- Stamp duty
- Stay
- Suit for declaration / possession
- Succession Act
- Suit for recovery of Money
- T
- V
- W
[P&H] CrPC S. 389 – Directions contained in ‘Dharampal v. State of Haryana’, 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 600 are only in the nature of guidelines and the same should not be observed as an invariable rule. (2022-2)206 PLR 197, 2022 PLRonline 0861
0
