Court : Patna
Decided on : Apr-28-1999
1. This is a writ petition for release of the petitioner from judicial custody in G.R. Case No. 1/99, arising out of Bairgania P.S. Case No. 1/99, currently pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, on the ground that his continued detention with effect from 31.3.99 is in the teeth of the provisions of Section 309(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').2. Mr. Prasoon Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the present petitioner is a named accused in Bairgania P.S. Case No. 1/99, wherein allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and others under Sections 364, 323 and 307, read with Section 34 of the, I.P.C., as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. The same was started on the basis of the information of one Rina Devi, recorded on 1.1.99 with the Bairgania Police Station. In view of the issue arising in the writ petition, there is no need to go into the allegations set out in the FIR, a copy of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-04-1999
Reported in : (1999)156CTR(MP)261
ORDERS. B. Sakrikar, J.The unsuccessful petitioners (accused) have filed this petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10/86 of the Court of ACJM (Economic Offences), Indore.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicant, Income Tax Officer 'A' Ward, Khandwa, filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Indore, against the petitioners and deceased partners of the firm M/s Kanhaiyalal Deepchand Jain alleging commission of offence punishable under section 276E/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is alleged that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1983-84 of the applicant No. 1, assessee-firm, it was found that the firm repaid the loan amount in cash i.e., otherwise that A/c Payee cheques or the draft, respectively, to Smt. Basanti Bai W/o Kanhaiyalal; Rajeshkumar Roopchand Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 10,200 when the balance in their account was exceeding Rs. 10,000....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : May-04-1999
Reported in : [2000]241ITR323(MP); 1999(2)MPLJ19
S.B. Sakrikar, J.1. The unsuccessful petitioners (accused) have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10 of 1986 of the court of the ACJM (Economic Offences), Indore.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the non-applicant, Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Khandwa, filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Indore, against the petitioners and the deceased partners of the firm, Kanhaiyalal Deepchand Jain, alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 276E/ 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It is alleged that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year 1983-84 of applicant No. 1, the asses-see-firm, it was found that the firm repaid the loan amount in cash, i.e., otherwise than by account payee cheques or the draft, respectively, to Smt. Basanti Bai wife of Kanhaiyalal ; Rajeshkumar Roopchand, Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 10,200 when ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-12-1999
Reported in : 1999CriLJ2796
ORDERA.S. Godara, J.1. All these petitions involve common questions of law and facts and besides the litigating parties are same, therefore, as per the convenience the same are proposed to be decided by this common order.2. In S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 322/ 97, the accused-petitioner issued a cheque in favour of complainant-non-petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on 5-2-92 and, on presentation for encashment and clearance in his own account by the non-petitioner, the same was on account of insufficiency of fund in the account of the drawer-accused, dishonored and returned as such.3. As regards S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 323/97, succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition arc that the complainant, presently, non-petitioner No. 2 in this petition, filed a criminal complaint under Section 38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the Court of Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Sriganganagar alleging therein that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-04-1999
Reported in : 1999(2)ALD(Cri)755; 2000(5)BomCR877; 1999CriLJ3806; 1999(3)MhLj881
ORDERD. D. Sinha, J.1. Rule, made returnable forthwith by consent of parties.2. All the above referred criminal revision applications are directed against the same impugned order dated 13-8-1998 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur whereby non-applicants/accused S.M. Damle, D.A. Gadgil and Surin Usgaonkar came to be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No. 245/ 1998 under sections 406, 420 and 468 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, all these matters are disposed of by this common judgment.3. The State of Maharashtra as well as complainant Dakshindas challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 13-8-1998 on the ground that the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons because the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. According to Shri Mardikar, learned Counsel for the State, and Shri Pendharkar, learned Counsel for the complainant, the very approach of the learned Additional Sess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-22-1999
Reported in : 1999(4)BomCR251
ORDERS.S. Nijjar, J.1. This order will dispose of Notice of Motion Nos. 2023/97 and 2167 of 1997.These two Notices of Motion have been taken out for setting aside the ex parte decrees dated 20th July, 1995 against defendant No. 1 and 18th October, 1995 against defendant No. 2. The plaintiff is carrying on business in the name and style of 'Oriental Finance Company'. On 23rd August, 1991 the plaintiff had advanced a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the firm of Dayal Dosabhai & Co. The firm had given post dated cheques in favour of the plaintiff dated 25th November, 1991. The firm also handed over three other post dated cheques for interest for Rs. 1500/- Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 1700/- which covered the interest for the period upto 25th November, 1991. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 guaranteed the repayment of the amount. Two guarantees were given in writing by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 dated 23rd August, 1991. On presentation of the post dated cheques by the plaintiff to the bank, it was dishonoured with the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-19-1999
Reported in : AIR1999SC1765; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)468; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)280; 1999CriLJ2583; 1999(1)Crimes109(SC); JT1999(1)SC540; 1999(1)SCALE561; (1999)3SCC247; [1999]1SCR780; 2000(1)SLJ106(SC)
Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is a Class-I officer of Karnataka Administrative Service. On 24.8.1989 a report was drawn up against him under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging therein that he has assets disproportionate to his known source of income. After investigation the Inspector General of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta authorised the Investigating Officer to submit a 'B' report before the Special Judge, Bangalore where the matter was pending and after issuance of a public notice in the prescribed form inviting objections to the aforesaid 'B' report from the interested persons by order dated 11.4.1991, the said 'B' report was accepted by the learned Special Judge. Properties of the appellant which had been earlier attached were directed to be released. On 25.7.95 the Supdt. of Police Karnataka Lokayukta authorised the Deputy Supdt. of Police to investigate into the assets of the appellant and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-27-1999
Reported in : 1999CriLJ4657
ORDERB.K. Sharma, J.1. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12-1-1994 passed by Sri D.C. Awasthi, the then II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1993 (Joyti Upadhyay v. Vinod Upadhyay and Ors.) under Sections 498A/406, I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Prem Nagar, district Bareilly summoning the accused revisionists.2. Heard the learned counsel for the accused revisionists and the learned A.G.A.3. The facts, leading to this revision, are that Smt. Jyoti Upadhyay, complainant opposite party No. 3 in this revision, filed a complaint on 4-1-1993 before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly against Vinod Upadhyay, Rama Shanker Updhayay, Bhanu Pratap Upadhyay, Smt. Indu Chaturvedi and Kamla Shanker Upadhyay, with the allegations that she was married to Vinod Upadhyay on 7-12-1989 at Bareilly according to Hindu rites that in the marriage, the father of the complainant had given ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Sep-01-1999
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2874
N.K. Jain, J.1. Pursuant to the order of Reference, passed on 3-10-97 by one of us. (N.K. Jain, J.) this M.Cr.C. has been placed before us for resolving the question as extracted below :Whether the High Court can, in an appropriate case, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., grant permission to the parties to compound a non-com-poundable offence or quash criminal prosecution as a result of such compromise between the parties, to secure ends of justice, keeping in view the statutory bar contained under section 320(9) Cr.P.C.?2. The applicants herein are facing criminal trial (Criminal Case No. 3771/95 State of M.P. v. Deepak) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, instituted on a police report, under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC. When the case was fixed for evidence on 30-5-97, an application was filed by respondent No. 3 Smt. Leena Dawar, under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., for permission to compound the offences against the applicants. The learned tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-08-1999
Reported in : II(1999)DMC382
M.L. Singhal, J.1. Smt. Shyama was married to Sanjay Chopra at Delhi on 20.4.1992. On 18.1.1994, Divya Chopra was born to them. Shyama's parents spent a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs on her marriage. They gave gold ornaments, precious clothes etc. in marriage. Still, Sanjay Chopra, his father and unmarried sister started taunting her that she had not brought adequate dowry. They put forth demand for Rs. 2 lacs on her as Sanjay Chopra was to expand his business. Her parents were not in a position to fulfil this demand. Smt. Shyama brought home to them that her parents had already spent enough on her marriage and they were not in a position to fulfil the demand. She was maltreated, harassed and taunted. She was also beaten. Sanjay Chopra was a drug-addict. She kept tolerating all this in the hope that better sense might prevail upon them and they would develop kind attitude towards her, full of love and affection. Child was born to her at Delhi in the hospital. Her mother came to Delhi in the hos...
Tag this Judgment!