Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006CriLJ2633; I(2007)DMC83
ORDERS.B. Deshmukh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel Smt. Deepali Jape-Ansingkar, for the applicant and learned Counsel Mr. B. G. Deshmukh, for the respondent.2. The applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 40/1994, in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First class, Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was alleged in the application by the present applicant/wife that she was married with the respondent/husband, 10-11 years prior to the filling of the said application at village Banwas, taluka : Palam, District : Parbhani. The marriage was blissful for about three years. Thereafter, she was being ill-treated and reached to her mother's house by the respondent at Gangakhed before 1993. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gangakhed, after hearing the parties, by the Judgment and order dated 08-02-1996 awarded an amount of Rs. 300/- per month towards maintenance in favour of the present applicant and amount of Rs. 100/- was awa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(2)BomCR485; (1991)93BOMLR432
D.J. Moharir, J.1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as also under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners pray for quashing of a criminal case pending against them ever since the year 1983. The prosecution in this case is for commission of offence under section 17(1)(f), 17(1)(g), 39(3)(a) and 40(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and which offences are punishable under section 81 of the said Act and in respect of which the authority to make a complaint has to be as per the provisions of section 35 of the said Act. No Court can take cognizance of any offence unless a complaint is made by the Chief Warden or such other officer as the State Government may authorise in this behalf. Originally two separate complaints were filed. The petitioner No. 1 was proceeded against in Criminal Case No. 37 of 1981 and petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 in Criminal Case No. 36 of 1981, both launched in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996(2)ALT(Cri)357; 1996CriLJ3331
ORDER1. After getting the admission of this revision, assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Kancheepuram, in Cri.M.B. No. 56/95 in C.C. No. 88/93, dated 10-5-1995, in a petition filed under S. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by and on behalf of the revision petitioner herein, declining to discharge the petitioner, who was the accused subsequently added by filing an amended charge-sheet in the above calendar case before the trial Court, as insisted by the Bar, the revision was heard in full on merits an it is disposed of by passing the following order. 2. The petitioner by name Ramapandian was working as a Sub-Inspector in Baluchettychatram Police Station between 5-9-1990 and 21-11-1991 and during that time the first accused by name one Sivaprakasam was working as a Grade I Police Constable in the same police station. In connection with certain criminal activities committed by the said Grade I Police Constable while he was entrusted with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008CriLJ3300
ORDERM. Jeyapaul, J.1. The revision is filed challenging the order of dismissal passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P. No. 1940 of 2007 filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioners are the accused in a case of major offence of murder. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioners filed an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon as many as five documents from the respondent.3. It is relevant to refer to the averment in the petition filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the counter filed by the respondent.4. The petitioners have contended in the aforesaid petition seeking to summon the case diary of the present case, case diary of the counter case, general diary of the present case, the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure including the statement of one Geja Thomas, the copy of the accident register of the deceased Thirupathi and the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2002CriLJ3026
ORDERP.D. Dinakaran, J.1.1. The aforesaid petitions raise an interesting but somewhat complex question for adjudication as to the procedure to be followed after the further investigation permitted under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the evidence gathered and vital materials collected, pursuant to the Letters Rogatory issued and the undertakings given under Section 166A of Code of Criminal Procedure.1.2. In this regard, it is apt to extract Sections 166A and 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for better appreciation of issues raised in the above petitions:'Section 166A Cr.P.C.: Letter of request to competent authority for investigation in a country or place outside India: - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, if, in the course of an investigation into an offence, an application is made by the investigating officer or any officer superior in rank to the investigating officer that evidence may be available in a country or place outside Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2496; [2008(3)JCR391(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 16.6.2007, passed by learned A.C.J.M., Latehar in Latehar P.S. Case No. 50 of 1998 (G.R. No. 132 of 1998), whereby and whereunder, the discharge petition filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner was rejected.2. Short fact of the case, as stands narrated in the written report of the opposite party No. 2 Awadh Bihari Singh, the then Divisional Forest Officer, State Trading Division-II, Latehar, was that the petitioner Vijay Kumar Sinha was the Divisional Forest Officer of the State Trading Division-II, Latehar from 2.1.1990 to 28.12.1993. It was alleged that during his tenure of posting at such place, he defalcated huge amount of public money, approximate to the tune of Rs. 43,20,500/- as it was found after official enquiry by the Department. Informant had produced various documents with the written report which were the basis of institution of the case. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1965Raj196; 1965CriLJ677
B.P. Beri, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 417 of the Criminal P. C. against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the First Class Magistrate, Nasirabad on 18th June, 1983 in a case of rash driving and causing hurt thereby. 2. Facts leading up to the present appeal are these : On 2nd May, 1982 at about 8 in the morning accused Pukhraj, respondent before me, is said to have been driving his car bearing No. MSW 105 which collided with a truck bearing No. RJZ 209 and thereby caused hurt to the occupants of his own car, namely, his wife, his son and his daughter. For that reason a report was presented against the respondent in the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate First Class, Nasirabad, who framed a charge on 2-1-1963 against the respondent under Section 338, Penal Code (causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others) read with Section 279, Penal Code (rash driving on a public way). The case was then adjourned to 12th March, 1983, but no prosecut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2410; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)370; 2005(2)BLJR1296; 2005CriLJ2615; II(2005)DMC1SC; JT2005(5)SC347; 2005(4)KarLJ208; (2005)4SCC468
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, Shantha @ Ushadevi and Kusuma, a minor represented by her mother-guardian filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Petition No.2 of 1991 before the trial Court against respondent claiming for maintenance. The said criminal petition was allowed by the trial court by its order dated January 20, 1993 awarding a sum of Rs.500/- to the appellant, the wife of the respondent and a sum of Rs.300/- to Kusuma, the daughter for maintenance. The appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.47 of 1993 under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming an amount of Rs.5,365/- as arrear maintenance calculated from January 20, 1993 (i.e. the date of the trial court's order granting maintenance) to August 31, 1993. Respondent filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Tumkur being Crl. Revision Petition No.35 of 1993 against the order ...
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 : Supreme Court of India
2023 INSC946REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3233 OF2023(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8027 of 2023) AMBALAL PARIHAR ... APPELLANT(S) VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ABHAY S.OKA, J.Leave granted.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.3. This is a shocking case of gross abuse of process of law by the second to fourth respondents. At the instance of the appellant, six First Information Reports were registered against the second to fourth respondents. There were two other First Information Reports registered against the same respondents by some other first informants. Two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were filed by the second to fourth respondents for quashing the First Information Reports filed at the instance of the other first informants. Criminal Appeal No.3233 of 2023 Page 1 of 64. Our attention is invited to the orders passed on the two petitions under Section 482 of the Code of C...
Tag this Judgment!