Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1962)3GLR815
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This reference has been made by the Sessions Judge Ahmedabad recommending that that part of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Dehgam which required accused No. 1 to furnish an indemnity bond for Rs. 10 0 with one surety in like amount in favour of the complainant be set aside. The complainant filed a complaint against the accused for offences under Sections 427 and 448 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Dehgam. The case of the complainant was that the field bearing Survey No. 156 was in the possession of the complainant and that the compainant owned all the trees in the field and that the accused had committed criminal trespass on the field and wrongfully cut some of the trees on the field resulting in offences under Sections 427 and 448 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that prior to the date of the complaint the complainant had filed a suit in the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : I(1998)DMC76; (1997)1GLR504
S.D. Pandit, J.1. Rule. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Criminal Case No. 18 of 1996 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 11, Ahmedabad have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said prosecution. The marriage between the petitioner Upendrasinh. A. Rajput and respondent No. 4 Manishaben took place as per Hindu religious rites on 23.5.1994. Thereafter, she joined the petitioner Upendrasinh Rajput at his house at Baroda and was dwelling with him till August 19, 1994. During this period, she has also conceived a child, but it is her claim that she was treated with cruelty by making dowry demand. Consequently she filed criminal cases bearing Nos. 151 of 1994 & 152 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 114 and offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and dowry case against her husband and his relatives in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad. In these ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2012CrLJ2947
Cav Judgment: [1.0] Present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “CrPC”) has been preferred by the applicant herein – original complainant to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat below Exh.1 in the Criminal Inquiry Case No.4/2010 by which the learned JMFC has stayed the further proceedings of the said Criminal Inquiry Case No.4/2010 in exercise of powers under Section 210(1) of the CrPC, till any report is submitted by the concerned police officer of Varachha Police Station on the complaint made by the applicant dated 18.11.2009. [1.1] It is also further prayed for an appropriate order directing the concerned police officer of the Varachha Police Station to register her complaint dated 18.11.2009 (Annexure H) as FIR. Number of other prayers have also been made. However, all those prayers are general in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2009)1GLR33
Akil Kureshi, J.1. In this reference, following question has been referred to the Full Bench:In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shahada Ors. v. Amjad Ali and Ors. : 1999CriLJ5060 , when a person is ordered to pay maintenance under Sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 fails without sufficient cause to comply with such order, whether the learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 125 is empowered to sentence such person to imprisonment for a term exceeding one month.2. Factual background leading to the question is as follows:Special Criminal Application No. 897 of 2008 has been filed by one Rama Muru Pariya, through Jail against the judgment and order dated 15th March 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhalia, Dist: Jamnagar in Criminal Revision Application No. 141 of 2007. By the said decision, the learned Judge was pleased to modify the order da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2775
Jayant Patel, J.1. The present appeal arises against the Judgment and the Order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 62/01, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and has imposed sentence for life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 500/-.2. When the matter is taken up for final hearing, the learned APP declared before the Court that the accused is absconding since 23.07.2004. He has also placed on record the Jail report received by him. Under these circumstances, the accused-appellant is reported absconding by the learned APP.3. In normal circumstances, if the appellant-accused is not represented through the lawyer, the Court may proceed to examine the merits of the matter. However, such situation may arise if the presence of the accused is secured, may be by releasing him on bail or he may be in the custody. Neither situation exist in the present case. The learned APP drew the attention o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2957; (2005)1GLR709
J.N. Bhatt, J.Prelude (Focal Point)Let us at the very outset, evidently record, remember, and recollect that ;'A civilisation is judged by the way it treats its criminals.'1. In this group of criminal appeals, specially assigned to the Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the central theme, the core issue and the main point, in focus, has been, as to whether the trial Court, on being satisfied or in presence of special and adequate reasons peculiar to the accused, to be mentioned in writing, in the judgment of the Court, in finding accused guilty, 'for a first offence' either by evidence or 'by raising the plea of guilty'; is competent to impose for such 'first offence';(i) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months and fine of less than Five Hundred Rupees for the offence punishable under the proviso to Sub-clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the 'Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949'. (B. P. Act')?And(ii) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)1GLR474
C.K. Buch, J. 1. The petitioners before this Court are accused Nos. 9 and 10 in the Criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.2 Bank, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 114 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioners pray that invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings initiated by respondent Bank through its officer Shri Bharatkumar Ambalal Panchal, be quashed as the same is bad and unsustainable on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 5 of the memo of petition.2. I have considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Gupta for the petitioners, Mr. A.D. Oza, Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and Mr. B.B. Naik for the complainant Bank.3. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that they are wrongly dragged into a sensitive litigation, though they were not party to any of the transactions referred to in the complaint filed before the Police. Initially the complaint was filed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1987)2GLR888
ORDERRule issued on 22-2-85 is hereby made absolute. Costs to be costs in the cause.Dt. 4-12-1985 Sd/- M.S. DesaiJudge,Court No. 13.5. It was urged by Mr. Shethna that because the said suit was filed and because the aforesaid orders were obtained on Ex. 5, original opponent had filed the above application for staying the Chapter proceedings in the first place. He further submitted, and it has also been specifically stated in paragraph 3 of the above application before this Court, that as the learned Magistrate by rejecting the said application presented by orig. opponent Ashokkumar had observed that the various decisions cited by original opponent to the effect that proceedings could be closed but the same could not be stayed, the orig. opponent Ashokkumar was constrained to file another application for closing the chapter proceedings on the very same grounds. It is, therefore, pertinent to note that the aforesaid challenge regarding staying of the proceedings as well as closing of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1966Guj166; 1966CriLJ749; (1966)GLR25
1. This matter arises out of an application by the petitioner to this Court praying for a leave to file an appeal under Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of acquittal passed by Unjudicial Magistrate, First Class at Broach acquitting opponent No. 1, original accused of an offence under Section 400. I. P. C. in Criminal Case No. 1100 of 1959. That application for leave was dismissed by this Court on July 17, 1963 whereupon the petitioner prayed for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. There was a division of opinion between the two learned Judges constituting the Bench which heard the application under Article 134(1)(c) and hence the matter has been placed for disposal under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent.2. The petitioner in this application is the original complainant who had filed a complaint against opponent No. 1 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Br...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Oral Judgment: 1.00. Present Revision Application under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner - original accused to quash and set aside the impugned Judgement and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mehsana in Criminal Case No. 1098 of 2004 dtd.16/4/2009, by which the petitioner - original accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo further Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month and further directed the petitioner - original accused to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the original complainant, towards compensation under section 357(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner herein original accused has also challenged the impugned Judgement and Order passed by the learned appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!