Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi877
S. Rangaranjan, J. (1) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi (SHRI Joginder NASH), has by his order dated 4th Agust, 1972. made a recommendation to this court that the order of the learned S.D.M. (Shri A.S. Awasthi). passed in proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code ., be quashed in the following circumstances. (2) I have heard shri R.D. Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner (Rajinder Singh), Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent (Abdul Majid) and Shri H.R. Bhardwaj for the State, This case highlights the kind of difficulty that courts face when dealing with certain problems that arise in crowded it owns and cities and the need for a kind of interpretation wherever possible of existing laws to meet with such problems. (3) According to Rajinder Singh he was tenant of a portion of shop No. G-55. Karbala, New Delhi, which consisted of only one room with a single entrance where he used to keep the clothes in which he traded outside the shop, the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 78(1999)DLT749; 1(1999)DMC666
S.N. Kapoor, J.1. By this petition u/Sec. 482, Cr.PC the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 332/93 Under Sections 498-A/406/34, IPC at PS Jahangir Puri, Delhi. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the petition are as under: Praveen Kaur filed a complaint on 14.11.1993 at P.S. Jahangir Puri. She alleged in the complaint that she was married on 7th May, 1989 to late Shri Bhupinder Singh at Chattiwind, Amritsar. Dowry was given according to status of her parents. But her in-laws were not satisfied and they demanded cash, jewellery and colour TV. These demands could not be met. Thereupon, her father-in-law Pritam Singh and brothers-in-law Ravinder Singh and Karamjeet Singh started abusing, beating and torturing her. She and her husband used to tolerate it helplessly. On 7th May, 1990, a child Paramveer Singh @ Honey was born. Thereafter her father-in-law and brothers-in-law started demanding more dowry and used to harass her. On 15th October, 1990, her husb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1465
ORDER1. By consent of both the parties, the revision as well as the miscellaneous petition were heard and disposed of by delivering this common order on merits. 2. The challenge in this revision is against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 585/96 dated 15-3-1996, which was the very result of a memo filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II before the trial Court dated 15-3-1996 as stated hereunder : 'In the above case P.W. 1 was examined on 1-3-1996 and today P.W. 2 is examined. Both the witnesses have elicited in the evidence box about the overt act of one Kennady, whose name was not included and added as one of the accused in the charge sheet. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that your honour may be pleased to pass order for issue of summons to the accused in the following address and thus render justice.' The above memo seems to have been filed on 15-3-1996. Consequently, on the same day, the followi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2006(2)MPHT51(CG)
ORDER1. The petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the criminal proceedings registered as Complaint Case No. 1782/2002 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the complaint of respondent No. 1.2. Brief facts of the case are that in the normal course of business dealing between the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 the former had given a post dated cheque dated 1-9-1998 for Rs. 14,20,689/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Industrial Finance Branch, Bangalore and payable to respondent No. 1. The said cheque was presented for payment to their Banker -- State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Bangalore, in the first week of September, 1998, through collection. However, the cheque was returned by the Banker of petitioner No. 1 with an endorsement 'please present again' with a cheque return memo dated 15-9-1998. After receiving the original c...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)137; AIR2001SC3774; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)578; 2001(49)BLJR2235; [2001]107CompCas365(SC); (2002)1CompLJ9(SC); 2001CriLJ4259; 2001(4)Crimes229(SC); JT2001(7)SC390; 200
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Criminal Courts are normally constituted under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') provides for the classes of criminal courts. In addition to the provisions contained in the Code or the old Code of 1898, from time to time, enactments have been passed providing that in respect of certain offence, there will be a Special Court manned by persons having specified qualifications. In the present appeals, we are concerned with such an enactment, namely, The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 ('the Act' for short). The passing of the Act was preceded by an Ordinance which was promulgated on 6th June, 1992.2. It is an Act to provide for the establishment of a Special Court for the trial of offences relating to transactions in securities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. In the year 1992, large scale irregularities and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(5)LHSC2857; JT2009(11)SC279; 2009(11)SCALE467; (2009)9SCC551; 2009AIRSCW6309
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.INTRODUCTION2. Interpretation of the roles and responsibilities of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vis--vis the provisions of the Extradition Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is involved in this appeal. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.08.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 676 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the appellant's application questioning the validity and/ or legality of an order issuing a warrant against the appellant by the Magistrate Court, Clayton County, Georgia in case No. 2006/CW/06369 and Case No. 2006/CW/06370 in USA in respect of a complaint filed by the respondent No. 6 herein, was dismissed. The appellant in that application had also sought for a direction restraining the respondents or any other Central Government machinery from arresting the appellant or taking any action pursuant to or in furtherance of the Red Corner Notice issued by INTE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008CriLJ909
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In all these cases, main questions to be considered are common. Validity of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance') and jurisdiction of District Judge under the Ordinance after enactment of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'P.C. Act') are the main questions to be considered in these cases. In Cri. Appeal No. 1400 of 2007 appellant was facing investigation for the case registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act alleging that the appellant had amassed wealth disproportionate to his income. The check period is 1-1-1994 to 12-5-2005. While the investigation was continuing, an application was filed by the Investigating Officer before the District Court for attachment of his properties invoking provisions of Sections 3 and 5 of the Ordinance. The District Court passed an order attaching certain properties scheduled in the petition. When the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1981CriLJ125; 1980MhLJ849
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This Criminal Revision Application is placed before us for hearing in view of the reference order dated the 18th December, 1979 passed by Kotwal, J. The Applicant accused and Original accused No. 2 Shankar are being prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of one Shoukat on 23rd September 1978. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the prosecution story because we are not concerned with the merits of the case at this stage.2. It appears from record that after completing the investigation a charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay who in his turn committed both the accused persons to stand their trial before the Sessions Court Greater Bombay. Thereafter a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code was framed by the Sessions Court. This charge was framed on 9th November, 1979 and on the same day the Publ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1927)29BOMLR813
Phillimore, J.1. This appeal, which is presented by special leave, arises in the following circumstances. One, Mani Iyer, presented an insolvency petition in the High Court of Rangoon against the firm of D.K. Cassim & Sons, alleging that the firm had allowed the attachment of certain immoveable properties to remain undischarged for over three weeks and had thereby committed an act of insolvency.2. On hearing of the petition it appeared that the orders for the attachment had been made on November 19 and 21, 1923, but that the date of execution was the 27th, and that within three weeks of the 27th, though not within three weeks of the 19th, the attachment had been discharged, and, therefore, there was no act of insolvency.3. It appeared, however, that in order to support the petition, the dates of execution of the warrants had been altered from the 27th to the 20th and 21st, respectively.4. This being so, the Judge dismissed the petition and reported the case with a view to criminal proc...
Tag this Judgment!