Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1992(1)Crimes748; 46(1992)DLT389A; 1992(22)DRJ203A
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) Shri S.B.S.Tiagi, Assistant Commissioner of Police,. Shri Prem Nath, Inspecter, former Sho Police Station Roshnara, Delhi, and by Asi Mohan Singh have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal complaint under Sections 302/102-B, Indian Penal Code These three petitions are disposed of by this Judgment. In these petitions, it is also prayed that order of summoning passed by Shri J.M. Malik, Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi, dated 9th May, 1988 and the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 9th June, 1989, (dismissing the criminal revision No.121/88) be set aside. The Complaint was filed before the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari by Smt.Surender Krishnan wife of Late Dr. P.G. Krishnan. The Complainant is a practicing advocate in Delhi and wife of the deceased Dr. P.G. Krishnan, Professor of law in the Delhi University, Delhi.(2) It is stated in the complaint that Late Dr. P.G. Krishnan wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1996CriLJ1202; 1995(2)WLN623
V.S. Kokje, J.1. Vijay Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Kalyan Singh, Kishan Singh, Khem Singh, Vaje Ram, Anandi Lal and Jalam Singh were prosecuted on charges under Sections 302,302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for having caused death of Ranjeet Singh, Devi Lal, Kanhaiya Lal. Suresh Chandra, Shanti Lal, Hazari Lal, Arjun Lal, Gulab, Prakash, Chuni Das and Sunder Lal by intentionally dashing a dumper driven by Vijay Singh son of Bhanwar Singh with the Jeep in which the eleven deceased persons were travelling. The motive for the crime was alleged to be enmity between the parties arising but of a property dispute and a Criminal Case going on between the parties.2. Accused Vijay Singh is the son of accused Bhanwar Singh and accused persons Kalyan Singh, Kishan Singh and Khem Singh are the brothers of Bhanwar Singh. 'The trial Court acquitted all the accused persons pf charge under Section 120B I.P.C. Accused Vijay Singh son of Bhanwar Singh was found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and accus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. An important question relating to the conflict between the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution which an accused possesses and the larger societal interest in effecting crime detection is involved in this Criminal Original Petition. 2. Challenge in this Criminal Original Petition is to the order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2011, declining to authorize the detention of the respondent herein in police custody during the initial period of 15 days of remand. 3. The respondent herein is an accused in Crime No.267 of 2011 for offences under Sections 147, 353, 506(i) IPC r/w 3(1) of PPDL Act 1992 and 4(1), 4(1A), 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. He was formally arrested on 01.10.2011 by the police, and thereafter, produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Karur, with a request for remand on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1996CriLJ172
1. Heard Shri A. D. Vyawahare, the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Shri Vyawahare, the learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there is no evidence of non-applicant No. 1 wife that the applicant husband has neglected to maintain her and the child Devendra and, therefore, the courts below were not justified in awarding the maintenance to the wife and the son. Shri Vyawahare also contends that the amount of maintenance awarded by the courts below to the wife at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month and to the child at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month is excessive and beyond the financial capacity of the applicant and, therefore, the orders passed by courts below deserve to be set aside. 3. There is no dispute that the applicant Tejram (for short 'the husband') married non-applicant No. 1 Sunanda (for short 'the wife') in the year 1985 and out of the wedlock, non-applicant No. 2 Devendra minor son was born. The husband and the wife cohabited for about six years and thereafter the w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP428; 1959CriLJ958
ORDERMunikannaiah, J. 1. The petitioner herein is a Revenue Inspector in Madak District. In Criminal Case No. 26/2 of 1957 pending before the Munsif-Magistrate's Court, Vikarabad, against another person for an offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution took out summons to the petitioner to figure as a witness. The summons was sent through a constable for service on the petitioner. That constable went to Sangareddy and found the petitioner engaged with the Tahsildar as he was Helping the latter in his official work. The petitioner did not immediately come out and attend to the police constable and accept the service of summons, but wanted the police constable to wait as ho was busy assisting his boss. The constable left the place and reported that the petitioner refused to receive the summons. On this the Munsif-Magistrate, Vikarabad. instituted proceedings under Section 485A of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner and convicted him of the offen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1971All107; 1971CriLJ359
ORDERO.P. Trivedi, J.1. This is an application under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Syed Alley Eba Rizvi. an Advocate practising in the district of Sultanpur.2. The brief facts leading to this application are these:3. One Allah Rahman was tried for theft of a bullock under Section 379. I. P. C. in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Sultanpur. He was being defended by the Syed Alley Eba Rizvi, Advocate, in the said case. In defence a receipt Ext. Kha-1 was filed before the said Magistrate through a list of documents under the signature of Syed Alley Eba Rizvi with the endorsement 'through Syed Alley Eba Rizvi.' On the basis of this receipt it was sought to be proved by the accused that the bullock belonged to him having been purchased by him from Mohammad Hanif. This plea of the accused was disbelieved by the Magistrate who found also that the receipt had been forged for the purposes of the case. Allah Rahman was convicted and sentenced under Section 379, I....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2006CriLJ1764
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This order shall dispose of M. Cr. P. No. 771/2005 being on application filed by the applicants under Section 320 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. for composition of a non-compoundable offence under Section 498A of the I P.C.1A. Briefly stated the facts are as under: Applicant No. 4- Naresh Kumar Agrawal was married to Smt. Manju Devi Agrawal on 11-6-1985. Applicants No. 1 and 2 are the parents and applicants No. 3, 4 and 5 are the brothers of Naresh Kumar Agrawal, applicant No. 6 is wife of one Premchand, younger brother of Naresh Kumar Agrawal and applicants No. 7 and 8 are the brother-in-laws of Naresh Kumar Agrawal.2. Upon a complaint being lodged by Jaiprakash Agrawal on 5-11-1985 for harassment of his sister Smt. Manju Devi Agrawal by the applicants herein on account of demand for dowry, offences under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were registered. After investigation, the applicants were prosecuted and co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR881; [2007(2)JCR283(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner, above named, has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal prosecution arising out of C.P. Case No. 276 of 2004 including the impugned order dated 10.1.2005, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short N.I. Act) was taken against him, presently pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro.2. The prosecution story as contained in C.P. Case No. 276 of 2004 in brief is that the opposite party No. 2-complainant being a business man rendered service to the company of the petitioner, 'Samteeh Infonet Ltd' and had done development work as promoter in the said company within the territory of the State of Jharkhand. The accused- petitioner, Samir Gupta was the Director whereas the accused No. 2 Alok Gupta was the Managing Director of the said company (in short S.I Ltd.). It is stated further in the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(3)SC314; 2009(4)SCALE66; (2009)4SCC439
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant was a partner of a firm known as M/s Saraswati Exports. He is also Director of a Company known as `Saraswati Exim Pvt. Ltd.' (for short, 'the company').3. M/s S.N.Kapur Exports is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short, 'firm'). The Complainant Vikram Kapoor (Respondent No. 2 herein) is a partner thereof. The firm was engaged in manufacturing, selling and export of carpets, mats, etc. It developed various types of hand knotted new designs of carpets and acquired special skill therein.4. Indisputably, the two firms entered into a contract on or about 1.4.2001 in terms whereof, inter alia, the firm agreed to help and assist the appellant with regard to production, i.e., designing, colouring, dyeing, finishing, etc. The firm also agreed to provide knowledge and know-how for the carpet production by the appellant for making their products readily saleable and more-marketable. The firm for the said purpose was to recei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2179; III(2006)BC465; [2006]131CompCas663(SC); 2006CriLJ2897; 2006(3)CTC591; 130(2006)DLT534; [2007(1)JCR377(SC)]; 2006(5)KarLJ32; 2006(3)KLT94(SC); 2006(II)OLR(SC
B.P. Singh, J.1. These seven appeals arise out of seven separate orders passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court on July 19, 2004 dismissing seven criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the orders of the JMFC Medikeri issuing process against the appellant on the complaints filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act'). 2. The facts of the cases are similar and the same question arises for consideration in each of the appeals. The only distinction is that whereas in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1256 and 1257 of 2004 the notices sent to the appellant were returned with the endorsement 'addressee always absent during delivery time. Hence returned to sender', in the remaining five cases the notices were returned with the endorsement 'party not in station. Arrival not known.The representative facts are taken from Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2004. 3. The case of the compl...
Tag this Judgment!