Vinod Kumar Vs. State

Vinod Kumar vs State

Disposition Case rejected Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 29, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/498506

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/498506
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: N.S. Azad, J.
Decided On: Nov 29, 2001
Case Number: Misc. Criminal Case No. 5966/2001
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Case rejected

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - Waraseoni, for the offence punishable under Sections420 and 406/34, IPC, who framed charges against this petitioner on 16-12-2000. Then this petitioner and two others unsuccessfully challenged that order, in Criminal Revision No.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Case rejected
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 468 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 406 and 420

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vinod Kumar

Advocate Vijay Pandey, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate R.A. Robertson, Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 468 and 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 406 and 420
Reported In: 2002(1)MPHT214

Excerpt

- - waraseoni, for the offence punishable under sections420 and 406/34, ipc, who framed charges against this petitioner on 16-12-2000. then this petitioner and two others unsuccessfully challenged that order, in criminal revision no......shri pandey has led me through the statements of witnesses, namely, bhuvan lal (branch manager), m.r. pachori, rajendra arora, b.l. kawde and t.l. daneshwar. in addition to this, he took me through the photostat copy of letter addressed to home minister by m.l.a., a letter of home minister written to the collector, balaghat and a letter written by the collector to the field officer, zila antyavsai, balaghat. on the basis of the aforesaid documents, it is submitted by shri pandey that in fact this petitioner is falsely implicated and a false case is made out against him, on the initiation of m.l. a.3. it is also submitted by shri pandey that for nothing, this petitioner would be facing trial for a long time as the contents of the aforesaid papers are not appreciated in correct perspective. it is lastly submitted by shri pandey that for an offence punishable under section 406, ipc, the court was not competent to take cognizance keeping in view the provisions contained in section 468, cr.pc where the period of one year is provided for taking cognizance, beginning with the date of commission of offence.4. offence punishable under section 420, ipc was also registered, of which the charge is framed against this petitioner, in addition to the offence punishable under section 406, ipc, therefore, the bar created in section 468, cr.pc is not applicable to the present case. secondly, appreciation of facts, is not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. hence, i do not find it a fit case for interference by this court in exercise of inherent powers, provided under section 482, cr.pc. this petition, therefore, does not merit which is accordingly disallowed and rejected.c.c. as per rules.5. misc. criminal case rejected.

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.S. Azad, J.

1. This petitioner is facing trial in Criminal Case No. 914/2000 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Waraseoni, for the offence punishable under Sections420 and 406/34, IPC, who framed charges against this petitioner on 16-12-2000. Then this petitioner and two others unsuccessfully challenged that order, in Criminal Revision No. 41/2001, which stood disposed of by First Addl. Sessions Judge, Waraseoni on 9-8-2001.

2. Shri Pandey has led me through the statements of witnesses, namely, Bhuvan Lal (Branch Manager), M.R. Pachori, Rajendra Arora, B.L. Kawde and T.L. Daneshwar. In addition to this, he took me through the photostat copy of letter addressed to Home Minister by M.L.A., a letter of Home Minister written to the Collector, Balaghat and a letter written by the Collector to the Field Officer, Zila Antyavsai, Balaghat. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, it is submitted by Shri Pandey that in fact this petitioner is falsely implicated and a false case is made out against him, on the initiation of M.L. A.

3. It is also submitted by Shri Pandey that for nothing, this petitioner would be facing trial for a long time as the contents of the aforesaid papers are not appreciated in correct perspective. It is lastly submitted by Shri Pandey that for an offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, the Court was not competent to take cognizance keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 468, Cr.PC where the period of one year is provided for taking cognizance, beginning with the date of commission of offence.

4. Offence punishable under Section 420, IPC was also registered, of which the charge is framed against this petitioner, in addition to the offence punishable under Section 406, IPC, therefore, the bar created in Section 468, Cr.PC is not applicable to the present case. Secondly, appreciation of facts, is not permissible in exercise of inherent powers. Hence, I do not find it a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of inherent powers, provided under Section 482, Cr.PC. This petition, therefore, does not merit which is accordingly disallowed and rejected.

C.C. as per rules.

5. Misc. Criminal Case rejected.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2001 Same Parties Vinod Kumar vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N.S. Azad, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 468 and 4...

Criminal