Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1995)DMC163SC; JT1995(1)SC351; 1994(5)SCALE275; (1995)1SCC627; [1994]Supp6SCR596; 1995(1)LC440(SC)
G.N. Ray, J.1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated October 14, 1993 in Crl. M.P. No. 1572 of 1993. By the aforesaid order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the CrPC, quashed the proceedings issued in Crl. M.P. No. 1626 of 1993 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, XIth Court, Secunderabad.3. The relevant facts of the case of the appellant are that the appellant was married to one Sri V. Raja Rao under the Special Marriage Act on March 18, 1983 and the appellant and her husband lived together upto November 16,1983. Thereafter, the husband of the appellant went to Saudi Arabia and was working there. He returned in February 1986, but on the ill-advice of the respondents, the husband's attitude towards the appellant changed and the said husband started consuming liquor heavily. The husband of the appellant thereafter went to Dubai and returned to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi926; 1974RLR191
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) The petitioner by this petition filed under section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code . has prayed that the proceedings pending before Shri Brijesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, against him and four others on a complaint filed by respondent Ladha Singh under section 352/341/504/506/147/149 I. P. C. be quashed. The grounds on which the proceedings are sought to be quashed are alleged to be that the petitioner earlier on 9th March, 1973, filed a complaint in the Court of Shri Brijesh Kumar, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, under sections 506/323/295/500 1. P. C. read with section 34 1. P. C. against respondent Ladha Singh and one Kartar Singh son of Ajaib Singh on the allegation that on 12th February, 1973, when the petitioner was returning from Gurdwara Sin Guru Singh Sabha Ali Ganj after having attended the monthly Sangrand Jor Mela he was waylaid by Ladha Singh and Kartar Singh near Ali Ganj Post Office. Ladha Singh 'respondent was stated to have caught hold of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997CriLJ4608; 68(1997)DLT274; 1997(42)DRJ472
J.K. Mehra, J. (1) This Revision petition is filed against the order dated 14th January, 1997 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi declining the permission to the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from the prosecution against respondent No. 1 on the ground of non-application of mind by the Public Prosecutor while filing the application under Section 321 Criminal Procedure Code .(2) The facts giving rise to the present petition in brief are that a report under Section 193 Criminal Procedure Code . was filed against accused Syed Ahmed Bhukhari the Naib Imam of Jama Masjid of Delhi by the prosecution on the allegations that on 22.1.1993 from Jama Masjid accused brought haltered and disaffection towards the Government established by law. It was further alleged that in a statement he attacked the constitutionally established Government, some political parties and some religious community. As per the allegations of the prosecution an offence under Section 124A Indian Penal Code of sedition w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1968Guj11; 1968CriLJ54
1. Karamshi Vasara had for sons Arjan, Nathu, Laxman and Jeran, who were living separate from each other. However Karamshi Vasaram with his wife was living with his son Nathu. Since last 4 or 5 years before the day of the incident which took place on 7-7-1963 at the village Kanatalay, Karamshi and one Bai Uji a widow had developed illcit intimacy to the extent that the fact had become the talk of the village. About 8 or 9 months before the incident Bai Uji had left Kanatalay and had gone to stay at the village Nital where she used to work in the fields about 3 or 4 months before the incident Karamshi also had left the village and went to live in Jesar where he had started a shop with one other person. They used to visit each other and sometime after both of them entered in a marriage styled as 'Gharagharna marriage' with the result that Bai Uji left Natal and began to live with Karamshi at Jesar three or four days before 7-7-1963 when the incident took place Karamshi had come to Kanata...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)2GLR1713
S.K. Keshote, J. 1. The petitioner directed this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Ahmedabad dated 18-7-1995. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner's father (since deceased) Joitaraman Topandas Patel initiated criminal proceedings against the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad Rural at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad sent the matter for investigation to the Police in exercise of its powers under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. After making the investigation, the Police submitted its report dated 19-7-1991 wherein it was reported that no offence was committed by the respondents. The learned Magistrate issued a notice to the complainant (since deceased) to remain present and to make a representation if he desires to make against the report of the Police. The rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)1GLR361
C.K. Buch1. The petitioners of both these Revision Applications, preferred under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, are the orig. accused nos. 3 and 4 of Criminal Case Nos. 2987/2001 and 2988/2001, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Ahmedabad Rural, filed by the respondent no. 2-orig. complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act').2. Considering the points involved in both these Revision Applications, on consensus this Revision Applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The case of the respondent no. 2-orig.complainant, Pinnacle Finstock Pvt. Ltd., a broker engaged in sale and purchase of shares on the basis of brokerage, is that their company had transactions of sale and purchase of shares with the orig.accused no. 1-Classic Credit Ltd. and that there was outstanding amount...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002CriLJ1694; 2003(2)WLN112
B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.9.2001 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No. 1 under sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC') appointing respondent No. 3 as a Special Public Prosecutor on the application of respondent No. 2-complainant in a criminal case.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioners are facing criminal trial for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC etc. The respondent No. 2-complainant (brother of the deceased) filed an application before the respondent No. 1 that Public Prosecutor in the Sessions Court would not be able to conduct the trial for being very busy and hence the State should appoint respondent No. 3 as Special Public Prosecutor on this expenses. Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 13.9.2001 (Annex.1) appointing respondent No. 3 as a Special Public Prosecutor. Petitioners filed an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997CriLJ3288
ORDER1. This revision filed by the petitioner who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pandaloor Sub-Division, Nilgris is directed against the order in Cr. M.P. No. 3342 of 1995 in C.C. No. 224 of 1994 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. V Tirunelveli dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for discharge under S. 245 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The only ground that was urged before the lower Court in the application for discharge is that, the complaint was not maintainable, since the prior sanction from the Government was not obtained before launching the prosecution under S. 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. This ground has been rejected by the lower Court on the ground that the question whether or not sanction is necessary would depend from the stage to stage and that it could be decided only after the trial is over. 3. Being aggrieved over this order, the present action has been resorted to by the petitioner by filing this revision before this Court. A few facts wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3527
ORDER1. This revision is against the Order of the 1 Addl. Special Judge, Madras, in C.M.P. No. 4451 of 1987 dated 29-2-1988 in C.C. No. 36/86 dismissing the petition of the revision petitioner filed under Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge him due to the delay of the trial. 2. The revision petitioner was working as Assistant Divisional Engineer in the Electricity Board. He was entrusted with the responsibility of arranging the electricity pavilion at various exhibitions conducted in Tamilnadu. In 1982, a complaint was filed against him alleging misappropriation of funds and he was arrested and chargeshetted for the offences under Sections 409, 487, 471 and 470 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for the alleged misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 21,000 under forged bills in the year 1979 while he was incharge of the exhibition. The trial commenced in 1988 and at that time, he filed the petition under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : III(2003)BC86; 2003(2)CTC270
ORDER1. The petitioner, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.4628 of 2000 on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same, has come forward to file the above criminal original petition on averments such as that the petitioner is a limited company doing business in drip irrigation system and more than 150 persons are working in the company; that during the course of business, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.25 lakhs from the respondent and subsequently, it was repaid with interest, but the respondent, with fraudulent intention and to harass the petitioner, filed an application under Section 439(1)(b) read with Section 433(e) and (f) and 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act before this Court in Company Petition No. 529 of 2000 for winding up of the petitioners company, which is pending.2. The petitioner would further submit that suppressing the fact of filing of C.P. 529 of 2000 before this Court, the respondent filed a private complain...
Tag this Judgment!