w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Praveen Pradhan V/S State of Uttranchal and Others.


Company & Directors' Information:- PRAVEEN & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1999PTC098397

    Criminal Appeal No. 1589 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2027 of 2012)

    Decided On, 04 October 2012

    At, Supreme Court of India

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: B.S. CHAUHAN AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

    For Petitioner: U.U. Lalit, K.V. Vishwanathan, Senior. Advocates., Raunak Dhillon, Ishan Gaur, Mehul M. Gupta, Advocates. for Karanjawala and Co And For Respondents: Rahul Verma and Saurabh Trivedi, Advocates.



Judgment Text


1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Misc. Application No. 420 of 2006, by way of which the High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code of Criminal Procedure'), filed by the Appellant for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceedings, i.e. chargesheet No. 208/2005 and order of cognizance dated 28.4.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, filed upon an investigation conducted on the basis of FIR No. 285 of 2005 (Crime No. 258/2005) pertaining to P.S.: Ranipur, Haridwar.

3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

A. That, a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') was lodged by one Ambreesh Singh, who is the brother of Anurag Singh, the deceased, alleging that the Appellant had long been attempting to compel the deceased to indulge in several wrongful practices at the work place. The deceased was not comfortable with complying with such orders and as a consequence, the Appellant started making illegal demands and as the same were not fulfilled, he began to harass and insult the deceased at the regular intervals. The Appellant, in fact, on one occasion, disgraced the deceased in front of the staff of the entire factory, and told him that "had there been any other person in his place, he would have died by hanging himself".

B. Anurag Singh talked to several of his family members on 6.10.2005 over the phone. They stated that he came across as highly perturbed and, hence, they tried to pacify him. However, owing to the constant humiliation and ill-treatment meted out to him by the Appellant, Anurag Singh committed suicide on 7.10.2005.

C. On the basis of the said FIR, criminal proceedings were initiated and in the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer found a suicide note which had been written by the deceased and upon reading this, it seems evident that he held the Appellant responsible for his death, by way of committing suicide.

D. During the said investigation, the statement of various persons including that of the widow of the deceased, and also those of his other family members, were recorded and they all supported the version of events, as was given by the deceased in his suicide note which made it amply clear that according to him, the Appellant was solely responsible for his death. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet No. 208/2005 on 5.11.2005 against the Appellant under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Indian Penal Code').

E. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed a Criminal Misc. Application No. 420 of 2006 under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure on 13.6.2006 for the purpose of quashing the said chargesheet, and also the other proceedings incidental thereto. The High Court granted stay of such proceedings, initiated on the basis of the said charge-sheet, as an interim measure. However, vide impugned judgment and order dated 5.1.2012, the said application was then dismissed.

Hence, the present appeal.

4. Shri U.U. Lalit and Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, have submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case do not actually make out any offence against the Appellant as far as Section 306 Indian Penal Code is concerned. They have submitted that, even if the allegations made out in the FIR/charge-sheet, are taken on their face value, and accepted in entirety, the same do not prima facie, constitute any offence against the Appellant. In a case under Section 306/107 Indian Penal Code, establishment and attribution of mens rea, on the part of the accused which caused him to incite the deceased to commit suicide is of great importance. The cruelty shown towards the deceased in such cases, must be of such magnitude, that it would in all likelihood, drive the deceased to commit suicide. The utterances of a few harsh words on one occasion, for that matter a suggestion being made with the intention of improving work, does not amount to harassment/cruelty of such intensity, that it may be termed as abetment to commit suicide. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, Shri Rahul Verma, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State, has vehemently opposed the appeal, contending that the Appellant would persistently and consistently harass the deceased to compel him to do various illegal things and that it was not an isolated instance of harassment, or an occasional off hand remark that was made by the Appellant in relation to the deceased. As the deceased had refused to fulfil the illegal demands of the Appellant, the Appellant made his life extremely difficult, by humiliating him constantly which eventually drove him to commit suicide. Therefore, the facts of the case being as explained above, do not warrant any interference with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal is, hence, liable to be dismissed.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. In the FIR, the complainant, who is the brother of the deceased, made several allegations against the Appellant, all of which, have also been mirrored in the suicide note left behind by the deceased, and it is also evident from the FIR that the deceased had intimated his family members regarding the ill-treatment and harassment constantly meted out to him, by the Appellant. The deceased was very perturbed and the same is evident from the suicide note which reads as under:

I am dying due to Praveen Pradhan. He has done too much atrocities. He is very cunning man. He always humiliated-exploited me all the time. He made me demoralised and made my self respect hurt too much.

He has hurted Mr. O.P. Agaral (KPGI) and Mr. CRK Gaur (Project Consultant). These persons also had to go before time due to him. He always hurts other's feelings as he is a egoistic and cruel man.

I have been daily hurted my self respect. He is always scolding me. I have to die solely due to him.

I have told my feelings to Mr. Pavan and Mr. Raghu earlier. But his attitude do not change. He always scolded and demoralised me. Even in front of Amit (Jaymit) he insulted me. He said Anurag is a "chutiya" as he is working for him and he doubted my dignity. I can't tolerate any way to my dignity.

He always forced me to resign. This can be verified from Mr. Minesh Dakwe (who is in Mahindra) that he forced me to resign. His attitude can be verified from other officers of factory. He is proving me faulty and incompetent after completing entire project work successfully.

(Emphasis added)

A plain and simple reading of this suicide note makes it crystal clear that the Appellant had not just humiliated and insulted the deceased on one occasion. In fact, it is evident that the Appellant perpetually humiliated, exploited and demoralised the deceased, which hurt his self-respect tremendously. The words used are, to the effect that the Appellant always hurt the self-respect of the deceased and he was always scolding him. The Appellant always made attempts to force him to resign.

8. The statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly, one made by Smt. Kavita Singh, widow of the deceased and also those of various other family members, corroborate the version of events, as given in his suicide note. Therefore, the question that arises is whether the court would be justified in quashing the chargesheet filed against the accused, in the instant case.

9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Anr., : (1995) Supp (3) SCC 438, a similar question arose before this Court wherein one Sushila Bai, a married woman allegedly had two paramours. There was sexual jealousy between the two. Sushila had managed to completely bewitch one of them. In one fine morning, while Sushila Bai was having her morning tea with both her paramours, they began to quarrel. During the course of such quarrelling, one of them made a remark asking the other "to go and die". The other person to whom such remark was made, went home very dejected and thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held as under:

In the first place, it is difficult in the facts and circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the Appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. Besides, the deceased had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the Appellant.
10. In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. : AIR 2002 SC 1998, a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased during which, the accused asked the deceased "to go and die". A chargesheet was filed against the accused under Section 306 r/w Section 107 Indian Penal Code when the said person actually committed suicide. This Court dealt with the issue elaborately, taking into consideration the fact that the accused had also specifically been named in the suicide note left behind by the deceased, and held that merely asking a person "to go and die" does not in itself amount to instigation and also does not reflect mens rea, which is a necessary concomitant of instigation. The deceased was anyway in great distress and depression. The other evidence on record showed him to be a frustrated man who was in the habit of drinking. Thus, considering the said circumstances, this Court quashed the proceedings against the accused, holding that ingredients of abetment were not fulfilled therein.

11. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr., : (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court re-examined this question, in a similar case, involving Sections 306/107 Indian Penal Code, wherein the deceased left a suicide note stating that the accused was solely responsible for his death. The deceased in this case, was a driver in the Microwave Project Department. He had undergone a bypass surgery for his heart, just before the occurrence of such incident and his doctor had advised him against performing any stressful duties. The accused was a superior officer to the deceased. When the deceased failed to comply with the orders of the accused, the accused became very angry and threatened to suspend the deceased, rebuking him very harshly for not listening to him. The accused also asked the deceased how he still found the will to live, despite being insulted so. The driver after all this, committed suicide. This Court found that such incident was a one time occurrence. For the purpose of bringing home any charge, vis-à-vis Section 306/107 Indian Penal Code against the accused, this Court stated that there must be allegations to the effect that the accused had either instigated the deceased in some way, to commit suicide or had engaged with some other persons in a conspiracy to do so, or that the accused had in some way aided any act or illegal omission to cause the said suicide. In the said case, this Court, after Assessing the material on record, found that the deceased was suffering from mental imbalance which caused depression. The accused had never intended for the deceased employed under him to commit suicide. This Court observed that if the making of observations by a superior officer, regarding the work of his subordinate, is termed as abetment to suicide, it would become almost impossible, for superior officers to discharge their duties as senior employees.

12. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi): AIR 2010 SC 1446, this Court while dealing with the term 'instigation' held:

Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.

Thus, to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or 'urging forward'. The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction.....to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts.

13. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh : AIR 2001 SC 3837, while dealing with a similar situation observed that what constitutes 'instigation' must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.

14. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 Indian Penal Code. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (Vide: State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh : AIR 1991 SC 1532; Surender v. State of Hayana, : (2006) 12 SCC 375; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. : AIR 2007 SC 2457; and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree : AIR 2009 SC 923.)

15. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight-jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

to under Section 228 Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of aforesaid settled legal propositions. In the instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing that she also had another paramour; and therefore, cannot be compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who was a qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent harassment and humiliation and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands made by the Appellant, upon non-fulfillment of which, he would be mercilessly harassed by the Appellant for a prolonged period of time. He had also been forced to work continuously for a long durations in the factory, vis-à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that, "had there been any other person in his place, he would have certainly committed suicide" is what makes the present case distinct from the aforementioned cases considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not think it is a case which requires any interference by this Court as regards the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed accordingly. Before parting with the case, we would clarify that none of the observations made hereinabove would have adverse effect on the rights of the Appellant in any of the proceedings during trial as such observations have been made only and only to decide this case.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State of GNCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
28-04-2020 Praveen Kumar @ Prashant Versus State & Others High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Khariwal Versus State of M.P. & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
12-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Sharma Versus State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat, Lucknow, U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Praveen Kumar Chaudhary & Others Versus Election Commission of India & Others High Court of Delhi
04-02-2020 Praveen, Proprietor Versus Sumesh, KaleeckalVeedu, KrishnapuramMuri, Krishnapuram & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
30-01-2020 Praveen & Another Versus Baby Ulhahnan & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-01-2020 Pankaj Kumar Versus Praveen Jain High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-01-2020 P.V. Philip Versus Praveen & Another High Court of Kerala
10-12-2019 Shalimar Iron and Steel Private Limited, Ramgarh Cantt. through its Director Rafat Praveen Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
17-10-2019 Praveen Kumar Prakash & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others Supreme Court of India
11-10-2019 R. Jaikrishnan @ Jaikrishnan Nair Versus G. Praveen Kumar High Court of Kerala
10-07-2019 Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Another Versus Praveen Kumar Singh High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-06-2019 Y.A. Praveen & Another Versus Headmaster, Government Higher Secondary School, Neervaram, Wayanad High Court of Kerala
21-05-2019 Joginder Singh Chauhan & Another Versus Praveen Dulta Chauhan & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
01-05-2019 Praveen Singh Ramakant Bhadauriya Versus Neelam Praveen Singh Bhadauriya Supreme Court of India
16-04-2019 Living Media India Limited & Another Versus Vijayan Madhavan Praveen & Another High Court of Delhi
16-04-2019 Praveen Gupta Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
08-04-2019 Praveen Chand Shrivastava Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Law & Legislature, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-04-2019 Praveen Kapila Versus Navin Soi & Another High Court of Delhi
01-04-2019 Praveen Kumar Kommineni Versus The State High Court of Delhi
22-02-2019 Praveen Versus The Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
04-02-2019 B. Praveen Kumar Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Tuticorin & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
31-01-2019 Maithili Manhar Siswawala Versus Praveen Kenneth Samuel James High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-01-2019 Praveen Kumar Arora Versus Akshay High Court of Delhi
08-01-2019 Praveen Kakar & Others Versus Ministry of Environment & Forests & Others National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
14-12-2018 The Director of Insurance Medical Services, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus Dr. V. Praveen High Court of Kerala
22-11-2018 Praveen Kumar Jain Versus Jagdish Prasad Gupta & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
15-11-2018 Ch. Praveen Kumar Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, General Administration Department & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-11-2018 Kushal Praveen Kumar Jain Versus Ito Non Corporate Ward 5(1) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
06-11-2018 Sangwan Heights Pvt. Ltd. Versus Praveen Chandra Trivedi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-10-2018 Praveen Poddar Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
22-10-2018 Khandya Praveen @ Praveen Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka
27-09-2018 Meghna Gopal Versus Praveen Chandran High Court of Kerala
21-08-2018 Praveen Arjun Patel Versus J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
13-08-2018 Manjunath Dasappa & Others Versus Trans Global Power Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory T.K. Praveen High Court of Karnataka
08-08-2018 Praveen Agarwal, Agra Versus Dcit Central Circle, Agra Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra
07-08-2018 Praveen Singh @ Bhaya Singh Versus State High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
02-08-2018 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director C.S. Aditya Praveen Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, Policy Relaxation Committee, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2018 Praveen Pandey Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
27-07-2018 P. Rithika, Minor, rep. by her father and guardian P. Praveen Versus Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource and Development, School Education Department, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-07-2018 Praveen John Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
04-07-2018 Asma Praveen Versus Badru Nisa & Others High Court of Delhi
25-05-2018 Dr. A.P.S. Guru Praveen Versus Directorate of Medical Education Government of Tamilnadu Kilpauk, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-05-2018 Praveen Engineering Works V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam - I Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Hyderabad
24-04-2018 Praveen George Joseph & Another Versus Ramesh Joseph High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2018 Praveen Pandey Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh
15-03-2018 Praveen Versus Hanuman In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-03-2018 Praveen Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
07-03-2018 Praveen Versus Deepa High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
19-02-2018 L.M.D. Athiya Praveen Versus N.B. Riyas Ahmed & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-02-2018 Praveen Maben Versus Nalini Maben High Court of Madhya Pradesh
18-01-2018 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Versus Praveen Kumar High Court of Delhi
11-01-2018 K. Praveen Versus B.S. Nagaraj High Court of Karnataka
03-01-2018 C. Praveen Versus V. Prakash & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
03-01-2018 Sajeeda Praveen Shaik Versus The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
29-12-2017 Praveen s/o Krishnan Versus Public Prosecutor Supreme Court of Singapore
05-12-2017 Praveen Kumar & Another Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-11-2017 Kumar @ Praveen Kumar & Others Versus State by Inspector of Police (Law & Order) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2017 Roopesh @ Praveen Versus Union of India, Represented by Special Public Prosecutor, National Investigation Agency, [NIA] High Court of Kerala
24-11-2017 Dr. S. Praveen Kumar Versus The Senior Manager, Credit Card Division, ICICI Bank, Hyderabad Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
21-11-2017 Praveen @ Parveen Kumar Jain & Another Versus Earth Infrastructures Ltd., (Through its MD) & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-11-2017 Kalva Praveen Kumar Versus N. Surendra Kalyan Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-11-2017 Praveen Kumar Maakar Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
17-10-2017 Praveen Singh @ Pappu Singh Versus The State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-10-2017 Kalva Praveen Kumar Versus M. Andalamma & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
11-10-2017 Nipun Praveen Singhvi Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
03-10-2017 Praveen R. Prasad & Another Versus The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-09-2017 Praveen Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
22-09-2017 A. Praveen @ Praveen Kumar & Others Versus The State through The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
08-09-2017 Rupesh Sharma Versus Praveen Kumar High Court of Himachal Pradesh
31-08-2017 Praveen Kumar Pandey @ Babua Versus State of U.P. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-08-2017 B. Asaithambi & Another Versus Praveen Chordia & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-08-2017 Munja Praveen & Others Versus State of Telangana & Others Supreme Court of India
16-08-2017 M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathi Spintex Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, C.S. Aditya Praveen Versus Director General of Foreign Trade, Policy Relaxation Committee, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2017 R. Praveen Kumar & Others Versus The Inspector of Police, Trichy District & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-06-2017 P. Delsia Versus P. Praveen Rajasekaran High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2017 P. Delsia Versus P. Praveen Rajasekaran High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2017 Praveen @ Bablu Versus State High Court of Delhi
16-06-2017 Vanjari Praveen Kumar Versus Vanjari Lakshmi Bhavani In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
05-05-2017 Praveen Kumar Jain, Worked At Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. Versus The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd., Represented by Its Managing Director High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-04-2017 Sri Sai Venkateswara Builders, Rep. by Managing Partner Versus T. Praveen & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
04-04-2017 Praveen Kumar & Others Versus Sharath Chida & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
04-04-2017 Praveen Kumar Singh & Another Versus Medinimata Agro Products (P) Ltd. & Others National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata
31-03-2017 Praveen Etta Versus Savithri Etta High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
22-03-2017 Praveen Versus Sabitha & Another High Court of Kerala
03-03-2017 S.G. Praveen Gowda Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-02-2017 H.D. Praveen Kumar & Others Versus Vice Chancellor, Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belagavi & Others High Court of Karnataka
16-02-2017 Smt. Kala Devi Versus Praveen Surana & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
08-02-2017 Gunjan Versus Praveen Surendra Pal Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
07-02-2017 Rfn Praveen Kumar Versus Union of India & Others Armed Forces Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
31-01-2017 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Praveen High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-01-2017 PR. Commissioner of Income tax-XVIII Versus Praveen Saxena High Court of Delhi
10-01-2017 Praveen Kumar Versus The State of Rajasthan through P.P. High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
15-12-2016 Korra Praveen Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
22-11-2016 Reena Kumari & Others Versus Praveen Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
15-11-2016 Praveen Versus State High Court of Delhi
11-11-2016 Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Versus Praveen Kumar Supreme Court of India
24-10-2016 Praveen Kumar Versus Mangalore City Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner High Court of Karnataka


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box