Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1984(2)Crimes67; 25(1984)DLT306; 1984(6)DRJ54; 1984RLR37
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out a complaint filed by Ram Avtar, respondent No. I, against his father, petitioner No. I, his brother petitioner No. 2, and a cousin, petitioner No. 3, on the allegations that the petitioners were party to a conspiracy to defraud the complainant to commit acts of misappropriation and in furtherance of the conspiracy, the petitioners committed offences of fraud, misappropriation, forgery and using forged documents in the Civil Court and certain authorities thereby committing offences under Section 406, 420, 467, 568 and 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code . The complaint, which is rather clumsily drawn, is an apparent sequel to disputes between Ram Avtar, on the one hand, and his father and brother, on the other, and has its genesis in the family partnership in the name and style of M, Silco, of which the complainant was a partner. The partnership apparently holds valuable premises,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001VAD(Delhi)411; 92(2001)DLT179; II(2001)DMC690; 2001(59)DRJ467
ORDERS.K. Agarwal, J 1. This is a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 140/99 u/s 498A/406 IPC PS Patel Nagar qua the petitioner; the married sister-in-law 'Nanad' of the complainant (Respondent no. 2).Admit.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and respondent no. 2 who is appearing is person.3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are: on 16.1.1994 (Respondent No. 2- complainant) was married to Major Sanjeev Kaloti who was serving in the Indian Army; the marriage was solemnised in Delhi; she lived with her husband at the places of his postings, firstly at Kanput and at Dibrugarh, Assam. The petitioner, at the time of marriage of her brother Sanjeev was working as an assistant in the Ministry of Finance, Delhi was allotted Government accommodation. On 16.11.1997 the petitioner was married and she is living in her matrimonial home at Noida. On 9th June, 1998 respondent no. 2 sent a detailed complai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004CriLJ1623
ORDERV. Kanagaraj, J. 1. Petitioner as accused No.3 in C.C.No. 25 of 2001 has filed the above criminal revision case against the order dated 10.04.2003 passed in Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2001 in C.C.No.25 of 2001 by the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases cum IX Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. 2. The petitioner has filed the Crl.M.P.No.108 of 2001 under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking production of the documents referred to in the petition.3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner/A3 was involved in a criminal conspiracy between 1995-96 at Chennai, Trichy, Nagapattinam, Red Hills and other pleas to commit criminal misconduct and cheat the Government of India and Government of Tamil Nadu in the matter of construction/erection of cremation sheds under JRY schemes by using JRY funds and in pursuance of the conspiracy the petitioner/A3 initiated the proposal on 21.06.1995 for the said construction and erection of cremation sheds under JRY at an exorbitant rate of Rs.30,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1957All552; 1957CriLJ917
ORDER1. This is an application for permission to file an appeal against an order of acquittal. The order of acquittal is dated 22-8-1956. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 417, Cr. P. C., the period of limitation for filing an application for special leave is sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal. So the present application for leave is barred by time.2. Mr. Sadiq Ali appearing for the complainant-applicant has urged that the provisions of Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 417, Cr. P. C., are unconstitutional inasmuch as they violate the principle of Article 14 which enunciates the principle of equality before law.''The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.''It has been pointed out that, Section 417, Cr. P. C., makes different provisions for appeals against acquittals according as whether the appellant is the State Government or a private complainant. Sub-section (1) of Section 417 pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982(1)BomCR513
N.K. Parekh, J.1. The petitioner in this matter is the original accused in case No. 108/S of 1980 on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Bombay (for brevity's sake the petitioner herein is referred to as 'the accused'). Being aggrieved by the proceedings in the said case, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing and/or setting aside the said proceedings.2. It is the case of one Vikram Jayantilal (for brevity's sake hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') that he carries on business in the firm name and style of Bharat Distributors. That his firm deals in oils. That on the 3rd of July, 1980 he received a telephone-call from the accused. That the accused told him that he was an officer from the Indian Airlines and that the complainant should supply 200 tins of Postman Brand Refined Groundnut Oil to the Indian Airlines Canteen. That the accused had agreed to make payment for the goods against delivery. That on the 4th of July 1980...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010CriLJ315
B.H. Marlapalle,J.1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arises from the order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 79 of 1986 on 15/1/1988 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - Sessions Court, Mumbai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 381 of I.P.C. for causing the murder of two of his colleagues i.e. Omprakash Dubey - Midshipman and Hanumansingh Rathod - Seaman on 24/11/1985 at about 11.30 a.m. while on board INS Ranjit. He has been sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 and RI for five years for the offence punishable under Section 381 of I.P.C. The appellant was on bail during trial and he continued to be on bail during the pendency of this appeal as well. Thus, during the last more than 24 years he has been on bail and this appeal for some or the other reasons remained pending before this Court for more than 21 yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1943Cal285
Derbyshire, C.J.1. This rule was issued upon the District Magistrate of Jessore to show cause why the conviction of the applicant and 14 other persons should not be set aside. The accused persons are all policemen and, according to the evidence, were directed to secure the person of a fellow policeman who was said to have become mentally deranged and instead of obeying orders they disobeyed them and behaved in a riotous manner. The District Magistrate, acting under powers conferred upon him by the Government of Bengal, directed a Special Magistrate, appointed under ordinance 2 of 1942, to try the case with the result that the Special Magistrate convicted the 15 applicants of offences under Sections 147, 149 and 832, Penal Code, and also under Rule 38(1)(a) and 5)/Rule 34 (6b)(c) of the Defence of India Rules, committing a prejudicial act. He passed no sentence in respect of the offences under the Penal Code, but as regards the offences under the Defence of India Rules he sentenced all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:13. 02.2013 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2012 A.Vimala .. Appellant Vs. K.Ramanujam, IPS Director General of Police (Law & Order) Government of Tamil Nadu Dr. Radhakrishnan Road Mylapore, Chenna004. .. Respondent ----- Appeal against the order dated 28.10.2011 made in M.P.SR.No.104437 of 2011 in W.P.No.10458 of 2011 on the file of this Court. ----- For Appellant : Mr.T.Jaishankar For Respondent : Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian Additional Advocate General Mr.S.Shanmuga Velayutham, Public prosecutor ----- (Delivered by V.Ramasubramanian,J.) This criminal appeal has been filed against an order passed by a learned Judge of this Court on 28.10.2011 in an application filed by the appellant herein under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Article 226 of the Constitution. By the said order impugned in this appeal, the learned Judge rejected t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE/ ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.140151 OF2012CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS MOHD. PARVEZ ABDUL KAYUUM ETC. RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 981982 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition Nos.90289029 of 2016) CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.8394 OF2012CRIMINAL APPEAL No.983 OF2019(Arising out of Special Leave Petition No.5530 of 2017) AND WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.26 OF2019JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The facts, in short, envisage that initially two separate cases were registered by local Police relating to the murder of Mr. Haren Pandya, exHome Minister for the State of Gujarat on 26.3.2003 and an attempt on the life of Mr. Jagdish Tiwari, a Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader of Ahmedabad on 11.3.2003. The case of murder was 2 initially registered on the basis of a complaint brought by Mr. Janak Singh Parmar, vide FIR bearing IC.R. No.272/2003 at Ellisbridge Police Station, Ahmedabad, on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:30. 10.2014 Judgment pronounced on:28. 05.2015 + CRL.A.1415/2012 RAM PHAL ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr.P.K.Dey, Advocate with Mr.Kaushik Dey and Mr.Vijay Pal Singh, Advocates Versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Sr.Advocate/ Amicus Curiae instructed by Ms.Manvi Priya, Advocate Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP Mr.Krishnan Venugopal, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Siddharth, Advocate for R-7 Mr.Javed Ahmad, Advocate with Mr.Zeshan Khan, Advocate in Crl.A.No.939/2012 Mr.Mohit Mathur, Advocate with Mr.Badar Mehmood, Mr.Shishir Mathur, Mr.Pranav Mathur, Mr.Amish Dabas and Mr.Devinder Dedha Advocates for Mr.Pawan Kumar, APP in Crl.A.No.151/2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % CRL.A.1415/2012 Page 1 1. This is a reference to a Full Bench in Crl. A. No.1451/2012. The reference stems from i...
Tag this Judgment!