Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR1363
1. Dr. S.C. Mishra is the Chief Medical Officer working in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. His son Abhishek Mishra was studying in B.I.T., Mesra, Ranchi, Jharkhand.2. On 08.12.2006, he received a telephone call from one Ragini, the daughter of Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav, Union Railway Minister, who is also studying in same college and a college friend of his son, informing him that Abhishek his son got drowned in Dassam Fall.3. Then the parents of the deceased as well as the relatives of the deceased took flight and came to the spot on 09.12.2006, only on the next day.4. The body was fished out from Dassam Falls. He found serious cut injuries on the body of the deceased. Without conducting any investigation as to real cause of death, the police hurriedly made an announcement that death was due to drowning.5. He was informed that Ragini Kumari and two other friends, who accompanied to Dassam Falls, were taken to the Chief Minister's House on 08.12.2006 night. Thereafter, they we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
By this criminal misc petition, a prayer is made for quashing of FIR No.99/2004 registered with Police Station Patan, Sikar for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that allegations in the FIR are for creation of fraudulent will and its registration to get the land of the deceased. The will was subject matter of suit filed by the petitioner and has been decreed. Therein, will is held to be genuine. In view of the finding of the civil court, impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. It is in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardool Singh and anr versus Smt Nasib Kaur , 1987(Supp) SCC 146. Therein, while validity of will was sub judice in a suit, criminal case for the same allegation was not allowed to proceed. In the instant case, petition stands on better footing because not only the civil case was instituted but it has already been decreed in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1884; 2008(2)ALT123(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN95; 2008(5)CTC358; RLW2008(3)SC2293; 2008(3)SCALE501; (2008)5SCC765; 2008AIRSCW2106; 2008(2)AICLR493; 2008(2)Supreme445; 2008(2)LH(SC)1235
S.B. Sinha, J1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is the owner of a cinema theatre. An agreement of sale dated 28.03.2001 was entered into by and between the parties hereto in respect of the said property for a consideration of Rs. 64 lakhs. Respondent made part payment of Rs. 32,97,000/- of the said amount. A suit for specific performance of the contract was filed as no deed of sale was executed in terms of the said agreement dated 28.03.2001.3. During hearing of the said suit, a receipt was filed showing payment of a sum of Rs. 4,03,000/- to the appellant herein. The said receipt was marked as Exhibit A.15. On the said basis, allegedly, possession of the theatre was obtained by the respondent. The learned Trial Judge, however, dismissed the said suit by an order dated 29.04.2006 inter alia opining:45. Therefore, in the circumstances I find that there is no evidence produced by the plaintiff which is sufficient to outweigh the opinion and the evidence of D.W.4. Further it is to be seen that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1999]95CompCas492(Mad)
S.M. Sidickk, J.1. Heard the petitioner's counsel. All these five applications were filed by the same petitioner, who is accused No. 2 in five criminal cases pending before the XIVth and XIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and the petitioner/A-2 seeks to quash the proceedings in five criminal cases under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The first petition in Crl. O.P. No. 1408 of 1998 is filed by the petitioner/A-2 by name Rajkumar Nahta, who is said to be the director of the first accused company under the name and style of Mrinal Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited at Bombay to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 2263 of 1996 on the file of XIVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and it relates to the return of a cheque dated November 21, 1995, issued by the first accused company represented by its director the petitioner/A-2 for a sum of Rs. 24,99,013.3. The second petition in Crl. O. P. No. 1409 of 1998 is filed by the very same petitioner under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005CriLJ3166; 2005(2)KLT895
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the Finance Minister of State of Kerala. He was the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala till 4.9.2004. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P-6 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.P.No. 3157 of 2003 and Ext.P-7 summons issued to the petitioner.2. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram as C.M.P.No. 3157 of 2003 arraying Sri. A.K. Antony, the then Chief Minister and Sri. Oommen Chandy, the present Chief Minister describing him as the Convenor of United Democratic Front (as he then was). It was alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the accused fabricated a Fax Message purporting to be one issued by Sri. Ahammed Patel, General Secretary of All India Congress Committee to the Speaker of Legislative Assembly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1961Cal560,1961CriLJ617,65CWN977
P.B. Mukharji, J. 1. On the view expressed by a Division Bench of S.K. Sen, J. and K.C. Sen, J. by their order of reference dated the 31st August. 1960 the learned Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench for determination of the following points raised on the order of reference :' (1) Does the Special Judge appointed under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Spe-cial Courts) Act, 1949, to whom the case has been allotted by notification under Section 4 (2) or the Act need a petition of complaint for taking cognizance of the case or does he take cognizance when on receiving the Government notification and the record of the case from the Court of the Magistrate, he applies his mind to the-facts of the case; and (2) Was this point rightly decided in the un-reported decisions in two Criminal Appeals-Nos. 377 of 1958 with the title Sudhanshu Ram Guha v. The State and 393 of 1959 with the title Nemai Chandra Paul v. The State being cases decided by a Division Bench of N.K. Sen, J. and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1998CriLJ942
ORDERV.S. Aggarwal, J.1. Lakhminder Singh-petitioner was tried and held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Bangalore. It was alleged that the offence was committed on 22-6-1987; The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore held the petitioner guilty of the said offence on 5-1-1989. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The petitioner applied for his transfer to the State of Punjab. On 3-4-1992 the Inspector General of Prisons sent memo to Inspector General of Prisons, Karnataka. By virtue of the same consent was given for transfer of the convict on reciprocal basis. The said consent reads :-Reference on the subject letter No. 5169-GI/ G-6, dated 25-9-1991 on the subject noted above.2. This department has already conveyed concurrence vide letter under reference the transfer of convict cited as subject to the State on reciprocal basis. Accordingly you are requested to make necessary arrangements for his tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(1)ARC409; 2005(1)AWC831
V.C. Misra, J.1. Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 are present. No one is present on behalf of respondent No. 3--Munni Lal to oppose the writ petition, though Sri S. M. Dayal, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on his behalf. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned judgments and orders dated 26.8.1993 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the XIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar--respondent No. 1 and dated 14.8.1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar--respondent No. 2. Though the petitioner has sought for certain other reliefs in the writ petition, but during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the relief No. 1 and pressed the same only.3. The facts of the case in brief-ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2002(II)OLR459
M. Papanna, J.1. Invoking inherent as well as extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner sought for quashing the Charge Sheet dated 9.2.1995 laid by the police against him in G.R.Case No. 2361 of 1994, now subjudice in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar as well as order taking cognizance of offences under Section 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act against him.2. On the accusation made by one Khadala Sahu, to the effect that on 26.7.1994 at 5 P.M. while he was going along C.B.I. Road after selling mixture at D.A.V. School Chhak, an Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. ORO 1141 being driven by its driver came from his backside at a very high speed and dashed against him, as a result of which he sustained bleeding injuries on his head for which he was immediately shifted to the City Hospital, Bhubaneswar for his treatment, Capital P.S.Case No. 599 of 1994 was regi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1120; 1971CriLJ832; (1971)2SCC126; [1971]3SCR881; 1971(4)WLN23
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the order and judgment dated 9 September, 1968 of the High Court Rajasthan.2. The question for consideration is whether the Additional Special Judge. Rajasthan, Jaipur could proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. 2/68/Spl. Cr. as directed by the order of the High Court. That case was initiated under a sanction accorded by the Central Government under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 6(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellants along with four civilians were charged with offences punishable under Sections 120B, 161, 165A. 420, 409 and 467A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.3. The Special Police Establishment, Jaipur Branch on 27 January, 1966 put up before the Special Judge, Jaipur a chargesheet against the four appellants and four civilians. One of the civilians turned approver. The fou...
Tag this Judgment!