Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1988KAR3035
Hiremath, J.1. The plaintiffs sued defendants 1 to 3 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession of three items of properties namely Survey No. 40/1, Survey No. 40/2 and Survey No. 40/3 of Kattinahakkal village of Ankola taluk of Uttar Kannada District. While plaintiff-1 claims to be in possession of Survey Nos. 40/1 and 40/3 by virtue of a grant, plaintiff-2 claims to be in possession of Survey No. 40/2, though unauthorisedly that being the Government waste land. However, defendant-1, the present first respondent, filed O.S.83 of 1967 for permanent injunction against them in respect of the same properties and obtained temporary injunction against them on 20-5-1967. This was challenged in a miscellaneous appeal and ultimately the miscellaneous appeal came to be dismissed.2. Thereafter defendant-1 initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by applying to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate having jurisdiction alleging interfe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)MhLj71
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent though served. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Warud and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Amravati releasing in favour of the respondent a pair of bullocks and the bullock-cart which were seized by the Forest Officers in exercise of powers under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'). The contention of the petitioners is that the said pair of bullocks and a bullock-cart were seized by the Forest Officer under the reasonable belief that a forest offence has been committed by utilising the said bullock-cart and the bullocks for illegal transportation of the wooden logs without obtaining necessary documentation from the forest authorities for the purpose of such transportation.3. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and perusal of the reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : II(1996)DMC469
R.M. Lodha, J.1. By this application filed by applicant Gomaji Ghanshyam Mohadikar under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is prayed that the proceedings initiated by non-applicant No. 1 Yashoda under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tumsar and registered Misc. Criminal Case No. 75 of 1995 be quashed and set aside. This prayer is made by the applicant on the ground that prior to the initiation of the proceeding under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has already initiated proceedings for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur and the application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the non-applicant only to harass the applicant.2. The applicant Gomaji Ghanshyam Mohadikar (for short, the 'husband') married the non-applicant No. 1 Yashoda (for short, the 'wife') on 20.6.1991 and the marriage between the parties ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3330; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)760; 2000CriLJ4597; 2000(6)SCALE457; (2000)8SCC547
R.P. Sethi, J.1. The appellants, who are senior officers of the United Bank of India, have been arraigned as accused persons in the charge-sheet submitted by the CBI in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 and 120B IPC. They filed a petition under Section 239 of the CrPC praying for being discharged as, according to them, no case was disclosed either in the FIR or in the documents accompanying the final report submitted under Section 173 of the CrPC. The Magistrate, vide his order dated 6-7-1996, rejected the application and directed he presence of the appellants in the court for framing of charges. Feeling aggrieved the appellants moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC with prayer for quashing the order of the Magistrate. Their prayer was rejected vide the order impugned hence this appeal. 2. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants submitted that the av...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:06. 09.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10194 of 2009 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10328, 10794 and 11742 of 2009 Crl.O.P.Nos.10194, 10794 & 11742 of 2009 1.Mrs.Sri Priya 2.R.Vijayakumar 3.S.Sathiya Raj 4.S.Suriya 5.V.Arun Vijay 6.R.Sarath Kumar 7.Cheran 8.Vivek Crl.O.P.No.10328 of 2009 1.R.Sarath Kumar 2.Radha Ravi 3.Mrs.Sri Priya 4.R.Vijayakumar 5.Vivek 6.S.Sathiya Raj 7.S.Suriya 8.V.Arjun Vijay .... Petitioners Vs K.Tamil Selvi (Crl.O.P.No.10194 of 2009) R.V.Ramanathapillai (Crl.O.P.No.10794 of 2009) Mathivanan (Crl.O.P.No.11742 of 2009) 1.S.Arivumani 2.K.Diwakar 3.V.Sagaya Jeyaraj (Crl.O.P.No.10328 of 2009) ..... Respondents Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.10194 of 2009 Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records comprised in C.C.No.232 of 2009 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate's Court No.1 at Sivaganga and quash the same. Prayer in Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Sikkim
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1904
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. In reporting this case under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that being the Code still applying in Sikkim the learned Sessions Judge has confessed his inability to understand the nature of the proceeding initiated by the lower Court, the procedure followed therefor and the provisions of law applied and invoked therein. All the learned Counsel appearing before him for the parties, including the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, however submitted that the proceeding, which was initiated, purported to be under Section 145 of the Code and the learned Sessions Judge also having decided to proceed on that basis, reported the case to this Court for necessary orders, as according to him, not only the impugned order was passed in utter non-compliance with the provisions of Section 145 of the Code, but was also of a nature which could not be passed under that section.2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 /1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-4325 of 2014 Date of Decision: February 10, 2014 Harmeet Singh @ Heero and others .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Present Mr.Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the petitioners. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.96 dated 1.5.2010, under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25,54,59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sadar Sirsa on the basis of compromise which, as per the counsel, has been arrived at between the accused party and the complainant party.2. It would be pertinent to notice, at the very outset, that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of Crl.Misc.No.M-2938 of 2014 raising identical prayer, but the same...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1897)ILR19All390
John Edge, Kt., C.J.1. This case raises not only the question as to whether the appellant was or was not guilty of the offence of which he was convicted; but important questions as to the use which may or may not legally be made of diaries made by Police officers under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and as to what those diaries may contain. I propose first to consider the latter questions.2. In the course of the arguments before us the following cases were cited: Reg. v. Uttamchand Kapurchand 11 Bom. H.C. Rep. 120; The Empress v. Kali Churn Chunari I.L.R. 8 Cal. 154; The Empress v. Jhubboo Mahton I.L.R. 8 Cal. 739; Queen-Empress v. Sitaram Vithal I.L.R. 11 Bom. 657; Bikao Khan v. The Queen-Empress I.L.R. 16 Cal. 610; Queen-Empress, v. Madho I.L.R. 15 All. 25; Sheru Sha v. The Queen-Empress I.L.R. 20 Cal. 642; Queen-Empress v. Nasir-ud-din I.L.R. 16 All. 207; Queen-Empress v. Taj Khan, I.L.R. 17 All. 57; Queen-Empress v. Nand Lal Weekly Notes, 1894, p. 155; Kallu v. Quee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT251
ORDERRakesh Saksena, J.1. Applicants have filed this revision against the order dated 30-4-2008 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal, in MJC No. 45/2008, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Inspector General, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal to investigate the matters alleged in the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant and to proceed under the provisions of Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The facts of the case, in short, are that, applicant No. 1-Vivek Aggarwal, an IAS Officer belonging to the Madhya Pradesh Cadre, was posted as Collector at Indore. Applicant No. 2-Smt. Sapna Aggarwal is his wife. Complainant Premchand Guddu, who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly, filed a complaint against the applicants in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bhopal making allegations of corruption in high places of administration attracting the penal provisions of Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1958)60BOMLR159
Gokhale, J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, proceeded] : Before I consider the evidence against the accused and the arguments addressed to us at great length on behalf of the accused on the evidence, I think it would be convenient to dispose of first some of the law points which have been argued on behalf of the accused. I may mention that ordinarily we would have expected counsel to address us on law points at. the very outset. But Mr. Purshottam informed us that he would address us on the law points after he dealt with the merits of the case against the accused on the basis of the evidence on the record. The first, law point raised by Mr. Purshottam is in connection with the charge. I may mention that in the first instance Mr. Purshottam and Mr. Harnam Singh, who appeared on behalf of accused No. 2, took exception only to the second and the third heads of the charge. It was Mr. Bhasme, who was appointed on behalf of accused Nos. 5 and 6, who challenged the legali...
Tag this Judgment!