Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-18-1996
Reported in : AIR1997SC610; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)248; 1998(46)BLJR161; 1997CriLJ743; 1996(4)Crimes233(SC); (1997)2GLR1631; JT1997(1)SC1; RLW1997(1)SC94; 1996(9)SCALE298; (1997)1SCC416; [1996]S
..... before a magistrate without unnecessary delay and section 57 echoes clause (2) of article 22 of the constitution of india. there are some other provisions also like sections 53 54 and 167 which are aimed at affording procedural safeguards to a person arrested by the police. whenever a person dies in custody of the police, section 176 requires the magistrate to hold an enquiry into the cause of death. ..... certain aberrations here and there notwithstanding. the police powers of arrest, detention and interrogation in england were examined in depth by sir cyril philips committee-'report of a royal commission on criminal procedure' (command-papers 8092 of 1981). the report of the royal commission is, instructive. in regard to the power of arrest, the report recommended that the power to arrest without a warrant must be ..... serious matter.21. joinder kumar's case (supra) involved arrest of a practising lawyer who had been called to the police station in connection with a case under inquiry on 7.1.94. on not receiving any satisfactory account of his whereabouts the family members of the detained lawyer preferred a petitioner in the nature of habeas corpus ..... appeal was allowed and the acquittal of respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 was set aside. the respondents were convicted for various offences including the offence under section 304 part 11/34 ipc and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine ranging from rs. 20,000 to rs. 50,000. the fine was directed to be paid to the heirs of nathu .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Aug-20-1996
Reported in : 1997CriLJ2216
ORDERS.S. Sudhalkar, J.1. The petitioner in this case has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 173 dated 21-12-1995 of Police Station Chapper, District Yamuna Nagar, for the offences under Sections 302/452/201/148 and 140 of the Indian Penal Code and he has given this application for being released on bail.2. I have heard the learned Advocates Shri Baldev Singh, for the petitioner and Shri R.S. Mann for the Slate of Haryana.3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with five others went to trespass into the house of Mandip. One of them, namely, Girdhari Lal gave a gnndassi blow on the head and mouth of Mandip who fell down. When his mother Usha Thakur came to rescue her son, she was given gandassi blows in her head by Girdhari Lal. Sapana was also attacked with iron pipe by Happy. All the three injured died at the spot. Girdhari Lal sprinkled kerosene oil on them and partly burnt their dead bodies.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that name of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-18-1996
Reported in : 1998BomCR(Cri)363
ORDERM.B. Ghodeswar, J.1. Petitioners Police constables have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order dated 29-7-1995 Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Murtizapur in Regular Criminal Case No. 27 of 1994 rejecting the application of the petitioners for recalling the summons order dated 13-7-1994 of issuance of process under section 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the judgment dated 19-10-1995 passed/delivered by the Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision No. 210 of 1995 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners.2. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are as follows.Respondent No. 2 Manabai w/o Kashiram Tondle the complainant and the mother of deceased Bhagwan aged 29 years had filed criminal complaint under section 302, 304-Part II, 364, 324, 365, 325, 109, 448, 394, 118, 115, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and Shri K.J. Pawar (P.S.I....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-21-1996
Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR549
S.S. Parkar, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant who has been convicted for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer R.I. for four months by the Judgment and order dated 20th January, 1982 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as follows:---The accused had been charged for committing the murder of one Arjun Ghare the deceased who was the husband of the sister of the accused by name Delfin. The murder is stated to have been committed on 19-10-1980 at about 9.00 p.m. at Dhobighat, Sonar galli, Kurla, Bombay where the deceased and the accused and their close relations were staying. The murder is said to have been committed by stabbing the deceased with a knife which is article No. 1 before the Court. It appears that two days before the incident in question deceased Arjun Ghare had assaulted his wife Delfin who is the sister...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-06-1996
Reported in : I(1998)DMC76; (1997)1GLR504
S.D. Pandit, J.1. Rule. The accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Criminal Case No. 18 of 1996 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 11, Ahmedabad have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the said prosecution. The marriage between the petitioner Upendrasinh. A. Rajput and respondent No. 4 Manishaben took place as per Hindu religious rites on 23.5.1994. Thereafter, she joined the petitioner Upendrasinh Rajput at his house at Baroda and was dwelling with him till August 19, 1994. During this period, she has also conceived a child, but it is her claim that she was treated with cruelty by making dowry demand. Consequently she filed criminal cases bearing Nos. 151 of 1994 & 152 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 114 and offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and dowry case against her husband and his relatives in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad. In these ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-30-1996
Reported in : [1998]92CompCas344(Guj); (1997)3GLR2041
S.D. Pandit, J.Rule. 1. Satishkumar Jayantilal Shah, the original accused in Criminal Case No. 2361 of 1992, on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 9, Ahmedabad, has filed the present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The petitioner has been prosecuted by respondent No. 2 for the alleged offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by alleging that the present petitioner had taken goods worth Rs. 1,43,248.40 from respondent No. 2-company, Unipole Plastics Pvt. Ltd., in the period running between January 10, 1992, and February 8, 1992, and that towards the said dues four cheques bearing Nos. 384226, 384246, 384243 and 384249, dated February 15, 1992, March 15, 1992, March 16, 1992, and March 25, 1992, for the respective amounts of Rs. 46,926.20, Rs. 1,234.90, Rs. 46,920.20 and Rs. 48,168.10 were given and that the said cheques were presented to respondent No. 2's bankers and they were dishonoured by e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-08-1996
Reported in : I(1997)DMC467
M. Srinivasan, C.J.1. The respondents herein filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 25.2.1993 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur for maintenance. The first respondent is the wife of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the children born out of the wedlock. The allegation of the 1st respondent was that her husband, petitioner herein had neglected and refused to maintain the respondents without any lawful excuse despite having sufficient means of income, whereas according to her she had no source of income to maintain herself and the children. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the 1st respondent had no valid excuse to be away from the husband and as such she is not entitled to maintenance from him. However, he proceeded to grant maintenance in favour of the three children @ Rs. 250/-per month. The petitioner did not challenge that order as he was willing to pay maintenance to the children. The firs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-16-1996
Reported in : 1996CriLJ4370
ORDER1. Petitioner Selvaraj preferred a private complaint against the respondents before Judicial Magistrate No. III, Coimbatore, in S.T.R. No. 1933/91 alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34, I.P.C. First respondent herein was shown as A-2, while the second respondent was arrayed as A-1. The sum and substance of the complaint as can be discerned from the averments made, is that on 2-3-1991 at 11 a.m., the complainant (Petitioner) received a letter dated 26-7-1991 from the second respondent herein. Since the complainant had some eye problem, the asked his friend A. Gopal cited as witness No. 2 in the complaint, to read the contents of the said letter. The complainant was shocked and surprised to note the imputations allegedly made against him by the first respondent herein in the presence of the second respondent. The contents of the letter show that the first respondent herein had stated that the complainant was an international fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-03-1996
Reported in : 1996CriLJ3180; 1996(2)WLC710; 1996(1)WLN167
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor who accepts notice on behalf of the State. In order to avoid delay; in dipsosal of trial, the present petition is finally disposed of at admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the partie Disposal of the present petition at admission stage would be in consonace with the mandatory provisions contemplated under Section 483, Cr. P. C. which clearly provide that High Court shall so exercise its superintendance over sub-ordinate courts so that cases are disposed of expeditiously.2. I have perused the order impugned dated 12-4-96 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh whereby he set aside the order dated 24-2-96 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused-petitioner for one day under Section 205, Cr. P. C.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that in the facts and circumstances of the present ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-24-1996
Reported in : 1996(2)ALD(Cri)945; 1997(1)APLJ254; 1997CriLJ1960
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Guntur dated 17-6-1992 issuing non-bailable warrant against the petitioners. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are alleged as accused in C.C. No. 6/94 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Guntur under Sections 392, 427 and 411, IPC. The petitioners herein obtained bail in the year 1992 and since then they are on bail. While so, the lower Court issued non-bailable warrant to arrest the petitioners and produce them as they have not attended the Court on 17-6-1992 when the case was posted. The case of the petitioner is that though crime is registered, charge-sheet is not filed. When they were released on bail, there is no necessity for appearance in the Court before filing of the charge-sheet. Only after filing the charge-sheet, the petitioners shall attend. Therefore, issuing of non-bailable warrant...
Tag this Judgment!