Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1998BomCR(Cri)95; 1997CriLJ2713
ORDERA.V. Savant, J. 1. Heard both the learned Counsel. 2. The petition is by an unfortunate father whose daughter deceased Mangaleshwari was married to Bhagwati Prasad Samwal at Ulhasnagar, Thane. It is stated in the petition that the marriage had put great financial strain on the petitioner and had virtually crippled him financially, since the petitioner was required to provide several items in lieu of dowry. It is alleged that a room at Manpada in Thane was also required to be purchased for the son-in-law Bhagwati Prasad and the petitioner had to spend Rs. 56,000/- for the room. Despite this, whenever the poor girl Mangaleshwari visited her parents, she was complaining of harassment and cruelty and demand of additional items such as sewing machine etc. Mangaleshwari was being taunted saying that if Bhagwati Prasad had married some other girl, he would have got more than Rs. 3,00,000/--as dowry. 3. In the morning of 6th July, 1996 when the petitioner visited his daughter's house viz....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR411
Vaidya, J.1. The State of Maharashtra has filed the above application under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for cancellation of the bail granted to the opponents, who are accused Nos. 1 to 7, in a murder case, in respect of which Karvir police station has filed a charge-sheet in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Kolhapur, on December 30, 1974, numbered as C.R. No. 178 of 1974.2. The offence is alleged to have taken place on October 31, 1974, at about 8-00 p.m., in the village Koge. One Marutr Avaba Patil, was murdered as a result of continuous blows given by axes and sticks. The prosecution alleges that the accused gave those blows. The prosecution relied on dying declarations alleged to have been made by deceased Maruti.3. Opponents Nos. 1 to 6 (accused Nos. 1 to 6) were arrested on November 1, 1974. Opponent No. 7 was arrested on November 8, 1974; They applied for being released on bail in the Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR560; 1992CriLJ1838; 1992(1)MhLj427
ORDER1. Criminal Application No. 46 of 1989 is a proceedings initiated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Criminal Application No. 585 of 1991 was filed initially as Criminal Revision petition, but under the orders passed today, the same was allowed to be converted into an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both of these applications involve a common question of law, and the facts are more or less similar. Therefore, with the consent of the Advocates for the parties, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. Both of them are petitions made by wives, whose claim under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance has been disallowed by both the Courts below. 2. The facts, as-much-as they are relevant for the purposes of this decision in Criminal Application No. 46 of 1989 are as follows. The petitioner-wife had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bearing Criminal Mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : I(1991)DMC524
D.J. Moharir, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the rejection of applicant's contention that in view of the provisions of The Muslim Women's Act, 1986, he was no more liable to make provision for the maintenance of his daughter, after the latter attained the age of the two years. Facts may be stated thus, in brief.2. The present petitioner Syed Mushtaque was married to Smt. Syeda Kaniz Sibtain on 13-5-1984 at Nagpur. The child Tasneem Kausar was born to the couple on 6-6-1985. She therefore attained the age of two years on 6-6-1987. In the meanwhile on 30th October, 1985, the couple was divorced. Smt. Syeda Kaniz Sibtain quite obviously a well educated person, is a teacher in the Municipal High School at Nagpur under the Corporation of City of Nagpur. Being herself a person who had her own means of livlihood and was earning, she did not therefore herself seek any amount by way of maintenance from her husband. However on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991CriLJ2766
ORDER1. These two Criminal Writ Petitions filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India and S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be disposed of through a common judgment. The petitions are substantially between the same parties and the points of law and the facts that are involved are also common. The petitions raiseissues of considerable importance and of far-reaching consequence. I am, therefore, outlining the brief heads that fall for determination in these petitions which are as follows:-- A) What are the rights that have vested in the Custodian under the Textile undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 after takeover, and whether the property of the Company, namely, the proprietorship of the existing Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 can in law be said to have been transmitted to the Custodian as a consequence of such take-over? B) Whether the Custodian, after such takeover, can be categorised only as the permitted user, or whether the proprietorshi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1990(2)BomCR196; 1990CriLJ152
ORDER1. Since both these revision arise out of a common judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Criminal Revision Application No. 81 of 1988 has been filed at the instance of the accused who convicted by the trial Court for the offence under S. 325 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- and R.I. for one day i.e. till rising of the Court. That order was challenged by the accused before the Session Judge, Nagpur. The learned Session Judge vide order dated 19-4-1988 dismissed the appeal. However while dismissing the appeal. he modified the sentence to two months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. It is this order which is being challenged before me by way of Criminal Revision Application No. 81 of 1988.3. Criminal Revision Application No. 168 of 1988 is filed at the instance of complainant Shrawan for enhancement of sentence. According to him, the sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- for offen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1993(2)BomCR242
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. This Criminal Writ Petition No. 1160 of 1992 came up for hearing before Dhabe, J., and the learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 30th October 1990 referred the matter to the Division Bench as it involves a rather important issue touching the enforceability of a maintenance order that has been passed prior to the promulgation of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which came into force on 19th May 1986. The learned Single Judge had before him two proceedings, Criminal Revision Application No. 289 of 1989 from Bombay, and the other Criminal Writ Petition No. 1160 of 1988 from Nasik. Both cases concerned divorced Muslim women. In both instances, order for payment of maintenance had been passed in favour of the divorced wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the applications relating to enforcement of those orders were pending before the Court in May 1986 when the new Act came into force. Section 7 of the Act requir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.G. Hange for the applicant, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, leave granted to delete the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the present Application. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the order 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the applicant be allowed to withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before the said court. 5. The respondent herein, through Dr. Gauri Raghunath Rathod, Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Beed, i.e. original complainant, had filed criminal case being R.C.C. No. 898/2011 agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.G. Hange for the applicant, and learned APP Mr. B.J. Sonwane for the respondent. 2. At the request of learned Counsel for the applicant, leave granted to delete the provision of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the present Application. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original accused) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that the order 17-7-2012, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed, in Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, be quashed and set aside, and the applicant be allowed to withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application No. 21/2012, pending before the said court. 5. The respondent herein, through Dr. Gauri Raghunath Rathod, Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Beed, i.e. original complainant, had filed criminal case being R.C.C. No. 898/2011 agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1985(2)BomCR633
M.S. Jamdar, J.1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders passed by the Special Judge, Kolhapur on five applications filed by the petitioners for various reliefs in Special Case No. 1 of 1983.2. Petitioner Nos 1 to 13 (Original Accused Nos. 1 and 4 to 15 in Special Case No. 1 of 1983) are public servants being members of the Police force. At the material time petitioner No. 1 was working as a Sub-divisional Police Officer at the city sub-divisional of Kolhapur city. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 8 who are Police constables were attached to the Laxmipuri Police Station at Kolhapur. Petitioner Nos. 9, 10 and 13 were attached to Police headquarters and petitioner Nos. 11 and 12 were working as wireless operators at the Police Control Room at Kolhapur and petitioner Nos. 14 and 15 (original accused Nos. 15 and 17) are panch witnesses who attested the panchanama; alleged to be ma...
Tag this Judgment!