.....where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the high court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or fir if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated.” and also in narinder singh and ors. v. state of punjab and anr. 2014(2) crimes 67 (sc) where the supreme court held as follows:“29. in view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the high court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under section 482 of the code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:29. 1 power conferred under section 482 of the code is to be distinguished from the power which lies.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of order dated 26.05.1998/28.05.1998 in case no. 3 r 8/199697, the petitioner has approached this court. 2. the brief facts of the case are that, by a registered deed of sale dated 16.01.1982, the petitioner purchased land comprised in revisional survey plot no. 2196 appertaining to khata no. 162 in khewat no. 5 admeasuring an area of 1 acre situated at village arra, p.s. namkum, district ranchi. vide mutation case no. 91 r 27/198182, after due verification and enquiry, the name of the petitioner was mutated and correction slip was issued. thereafter, rent receipt acknowledging payment of rent by the petitioner was also issued. on 16.10.2002, the petitioner came to know that on the recommendation of the land reforms deputy collector vide order dated 26.05.1998/28.05.1998, the jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled by the subdivisional officer, ranchi vide order dated.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial court, without considering the fact that the ingredients of section 6(2)(3) of tnsc (rd/cs) order, 1982 have not been made out, convicted him, since p.w.2, subramanian, sub-registrar, who made an inspection on 25.10.1997, has fairly conceded in his cross-examination that he has not examined the card holders and verified the ration cards. merely because there was a shortage of stock, a complaint has been given by p.w.2. p.w.3 govindan, sub-inspector of police received the complaint and registered an f.i.r. (ex.p.19). p.w.4, jegannathan, inspector of police, after investigation, has laid the charge sheet. the evidence of p.ws.1 and 2 has not proved the ingredients of section 6(2)(3) of tnsc (rd/cs) order, 1982. he would further state that the amount in respect of shortage of stock has been deposited by the appellant. hence, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the same.6. resisting the same, the learned government advocate (criminal side) would submit that on the date of inspection on 25.10.1997, it was found that there was a shortage to the tune of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....assailing the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of p.w.2 defacto complainant is not fully reliable. the appellant is not a competent person to give appointment on compassionate ground. that factum was not considered by the trial court. even though p.w.3 was examined to prove the first demand, he has not deposed about the first demand. in his evidence, he had stated that he was directed to go out from the seat where the appellant was sitting. that factum was also not considered by the trial court. the second demand was also not proved by the prosecution. according to the prosecution, no shadow witness has been accompanying p.w.2, while tendering the amount. p.w.4 is an attestor of the recovery. as such, with regard to second demand, there is no corroboration with the evidence of p.w.2. acceptance was also not proved by the prosecution, because the amount has been placed in the drawer of the appellant. the drawer was not under lock and key. till today, p.w.2 was unable to get his appointment on compassionate ground, since one of the family members has got employment in jail department. that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....commissioner h.r.&c.e. department, tiruchirapalli vs. s.rama iyengar and another reported in 1992(1) mlj47 wherein this court held as follows: "the facts of the case show that the trust is a religious trust and it is exempted from the provisions of the indian trusts act. even it it is a private religious trust, it will be outside the scope of the indian trusts act. hence, sec.34 of the indian trustss act cannot be revoked by the respondents."(ii) in s.subramanian vs. commissioner, hindu religious and charitable endowments board, madras reported in air2000madras422 in this judgment, this court held that when the lease by deed intended to set apart the property to be used only for the purpose of feeding the poor and paradesis and no person is given right to encumber or alienate the property. the deed should be construed as religious endowment and the authorities under the act will have jurisdiction to supervise the property and also to ask for contribution. (iii) in the commissioner, madras hindu religious and charitable endowments, madras vs. narayana ayyangar and others reported in 1965 (2) mlj47 wherein the honourable supreme court held that where the primary purpose of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the petitioner that the respondent did so in order to coerce him to become an approver, is also quite probable. the said view is strengthened by the fact that the respondent himself has admitted in the counter affidavit that he contacted the petitioner over phone and required him to appear for examination in connection with the investigation of the case on a few occasions, without elaborating and explaining what are those few occasions. the petitioner has come forward with a clear plea that the respondent/investigating officer has formed an opinion that without the evidence of one of the accused persons as approver, the allegations against the other accused could not be substantiated and that the same is the reason for intimidating the petitioner to become an approver. these allegations are made by the petitioner not for taking any disciplinary action against or prosecuting the investigating officer for his alleged acts of misdeeds. the said allegations have been made in support of his prayer for relaxation of the condition and also for an order directing the respondent not to harass him by coercing him to become an approver. when such is the case, it is not necessary that the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....has restricted his claim to rs.5,00,000/- in the appeal and has filed this appeal for the balance of claim i.e. rs.2,97,600/- 3. the short facts of the case is as follows; the petitioner is permanent resident of melvanjore, where he is working as a cable contractor along with his brother loganathan, who is cable contractor in cpcl. the petitioner and his brother have taken the contract of cable laying work under the earth for power plant in cpcl. he is earning more than rs.5,000/- per month from the cable contractor work. on 08.08.2003, at about 08.30 a.m. when the petitioner was travelling in tvs moped from melavanjore to cpcl and nearing muttam bus stop in the nagore kankalanchery road, the first respondent's vehicle bearing registration no.tn-51-h-9009 coming from opposite direction from west to east, hit against the petitioner, who was travelling in east west direction. at the place of accident, there was a slight curve and due to the hectic speed, at which the first respondent's vehicle was turned, without reducing the gear, the driver lost control and hit against the petitioner. as a result, the petitioner, along with his moped was thrown out of the road and the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial court, without considering the fact that the ingredients of section 6(2)(3) of tnsc (rd/cs) order, 1982 have not been made out, convicted them, since p.w.1, subramanian, sub-registrar, who made an inspection on 12.09.1997, has fairly conceded in his cross-examination that he has not examined the card holders and verified the ration cards. merely because there was a shortage, a complaint has been given by p.w.1. p.w.2 govindan, sub-inspector of police received the complaint and registered an f.i.r. (ex.p.13). p.w.3, jegannathan, inspector of police, after investigation, has laid the charge sheet. the evidence of p.w.1 has not proved the ingredients of section 6(2)(3) of tnsc (rd/cs) order, 1982. hence, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the same.6. resisting the same, the learned government advocate (criminal side) would submit that on the date of inspection on 12.09.1997, it was found that the first accused misused the ration provisions and created loss to the tune of rs.9,982.34 and there was a shortage in stock worth about rs.37,739.54. on the basis of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in ariyur village panchayat, madurai district, on 31.12.1990 since then he was continuously working in the said capacity to the utmost satisfaction of his superior without any complaint whatsoever.5. it comes to be known that on 10.09.1997, the additional block development officer, madurai west panchayat union, transferred the petitioner and posted him in the office of the 3rd respondent panchayat. also, he was placed under suspension by the then block development officer, madurai west, through his proceedings dated 22.01.1998. the reason for placing him under suspension was that he had not submitted the expenditure account in time. further, he had submitted his explanation stating that he had submitted the accounts in time, but the president of the village panchayat of podhumbu had not signed the same and hence there was a delay for which he should not be held responsible. subsequently, the said suspension order was revoked by the 1st respondent vide order dated 26.11.1999. he was directed to take charge as panchayat assistant at podumbu. moreover, he was not allowed to reinstate into service at the 3rd respondent panchayat by the erstwhile president who appointed one.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....disburs.the interest accrued on the deposit made with him to the petitioner, pursuant to the order in contempt petition (md)no.231 of 2008. 3.the facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: (a)the petitioner earlier filed w.p.(md)no.835 of 2008, challenging the demolition notice, dated 14.01.2008, issued by the commissioner, karur municipality, alleging that she has constructed a house by encroaching the land belonging to the municipality. on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a division bench of this court disposed of the said writ petition, by order dated 01.02.2008, directing the petitioner to treat the said notice as show cause notice and to submit her explanation within a period of four weeks and further directing the commissioner, karur municipality, to consider the explanation and to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. the division bench further directed the municipality not to disturb the petitioner's possession, till then. (b)however, alleging that inspite of the order of this court, dated 01.02.2008, the municipality has demolished her house on 04.02.2008, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT