Court : Mumbai Nagpur
P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State. Perused the application, reply filed by the State and rejoinders filed by the applicant as also documents filed below Criminal Application No.709 of 2012. 2. Applicant is seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No.2/12 registered with Police Station, Malegaon District Washim for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 435, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 25 of the Arms Act. 3. Applicant had moved before the Sessions Judge, Washim vide Misc. Criminal Application 284 of 2012 in which she had prayed for interim anticipatory bail also. That prayer was rejected and, therefore, applicant filed Criminal Application (ABA) No.204 of 2012 before this Court. This Court (brother M.N.Gilani, J) on observing that main application was still pending, did not entertain the application and expected the learned Sessions Judge to decide the application of the applicant fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) The State of Maharashtra has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 683 of 2013, dated 30th March, 2013, thereby directing investigation to be conducted as per the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a complaint filed by respondent herein. Since during the pendency of the present application, First Information Report came to be registered by Police Station, Dhantoli Nagpur, the application has been amended so as to raise the challenge to the registration of the said First Information Report. Consequently, the State has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present application arises as under. The respondent, who is an Officer belonging to I.P.S. Cadre, addressed communication to the Senior Police Inspector, Dhantoli Police Station, Nagpur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the impugned order of dismissal passed by the learned Sessions Judge (in charge) Nagpur on 16.8.2007, whereby the Criminal Revision Application which arose out of common order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Nagpur, below Misc. Cri. Appln. Nos. 1573/2006, 1818/2006 and 2000/2006 (which were applications by different claimants to the seized property in Crime No.213/2006, reported at Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur) came to be dismissed. 2] It appears that Vishalbhai Narendrabhai Parekh running a business in the name and style as "R. V. Jewellers" and "Parekh R. Vitthaldas" had preferred Misc. Criminal Application No. 1573/2006 to claim seized gold reported to the learned Magistrate by the Police from Tahsil Police Station. Another claimant Sachin Prabhakarrao Sutone had filed Misc. Criminal Application no.1818/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Heard Mr. Firdos Mirza, Adv. for the applicant, Mr.A.S.Parihar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and Mr.R.D.Bhuibhar, Adv. for respondent no.2. 2. By this application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 2nd February, 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kelapur, Distt. Yavatmal in Criminal Complaint Case No.14 of 2011. The learned J.M.F.C. appears to have directed police to conduct investigation in view of power u/s. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The learned Advocate for the applicant has contended that the trial Court failed to consider that the complaint is not maintainable and if entertained, it would amount to abuse of the process of law. It is also submitted that the procedure as contemplated u/s. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Chapter XV of the Code ought to have been followed instead of directing the police to investigate u/s. 156 (3) of the Code of Crim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. Heard Mrs.Anjali Joshi, Adv. for the applicant and Mr.Dhiraj Bhoyar, Adv. for respondent no.1. 2. By this application u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed for to quash and set aside the order dt.8.2.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.51 of 2010. 3. It appears that Misc. Criminal Application No.80 of 2008, u/s.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the respondents was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Seloo on 26.3.2010. The respondents had challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order in Criminal Revision Application No.51 of 2010 in Sessions Court, Wardha. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order allowed the application for maintenance for minor applicant Sachin Sunil Katole directing the applicant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- p.m. towards maintenance of Sachin. However, the learned Sessions Court dismissed the application as far as grant of mai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Order: 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23-10-2007 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 921/2006 by which the order dated 10-7-2006 passed by J.M.F.C., Nagpur in Criminal Case No. 1433/2006 issuing process against the respondent-company incorporated under the Companies Act was quashed and set aside, the instant application was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the learned revisional Court relied on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Razzak s/o Hazi Gaffar and ors. reported in 2006(4) Mh.L.J. 771 and passed the impugned order holding that there could not be order of issuance of process against the company incorporated under the Companies Act in accordance with the said decision in which reference was also made to the earlier Supreme Court decision. He then submitted that there is a Constitution Bench judgment in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
This is an application under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (24th Court), Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case No.13119/2008. Mr. Dawada, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal before this Court. According to him proviso to section 372, inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 2008 (for short Act of 2008), which came into force with effect from 31st of December 2009, the forum for appeal would be the Sessions Court and not the High Court. Proviso to section 372 reads as under :- "Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant (original complainant) has prayed for, to quash and set aside the order passed below Exhibit 66 on 2 Cr. Appln. No.398/2010 21.12.2009 in Summary Criminal Case No.3950/2008 by the learned 23rd Judicial Magistrate First Class and Special Court, Nagpur, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereby the learned Trial Magistrate was pleased to direct return of the complaint for to be presented before the Court having jurisdiction. The complainant aggrieved by the said order, preferred this Criminal Application with prayer for to invoke inherent powers, in view of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2] The facts, which appear, briefly are as under:- The applicant is a non-banking finance company incorporated and registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956 doing business of leasing and hire purchase having its corporate office at Sadhna House behind Mahindra Towers wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally by consent of both the parties. 4. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the original complainant / injured in Regular Criminal Case No.231 of 2008 and the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the same case. Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 are the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively and applicant No.4 is original complainant/ injured person. Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of rupees one thousand each by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. An appeal was filed before the Sessions Court by applicants/accused. The said appeal is pending vide Criminal Appeal No.191 of 2009 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-7 at Nagpur. In the meantime, the dispute between applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 on one hand and applicant No.4 on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment On Preliimiinary Issues. B.P. Dharmadhiikarii, J. 1. These two appeals under Section 374[2] of the Criminal Procedure Code arise out of common judgment dated 30.03.2016, delivered in Sessions Trial Nos. 144/2012 and 233/2014. Accused persons are found guilty of committing various offences like under Section 143, 144, 147, 148 and Section 324 read with Section 149, Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. The maximum imprisonment imposed is for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, and they are sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. Looking to the challenge as posed, it is not necessary to mention other punishments which are imposed upon them by the impugned judgment. 2. Basically arguments have been advanced in Criminal Appeal No. 139/2016, where the original accused no.5 Mohd Hanif and accused no.6 Mohd. Azam are the appellants. These arguments are urged to be sufficient to vitiate the c...
Tag this Judgment!