Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-23-2003
Reported in : (2004)2CALLT164(HC)
Rajendra Nath Sinha, J.1. This is to consider an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by an order dated 12.3.2003 passed by Sri Sukumar Chakraborty, Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Court, Midnapore in Criminal Revision No. 22 of 1994 affirming the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by Sri M. Murmu, Executive Magistrate, Midnapore in M.R. Case No. 104(S) of 1986 under Section 147 of Code of Criminal Procedure directing the Dwaraka Prosad Agarwal (since deceased) to remove the illegal construction or to demolish the construction of brick wall and iron gate of the premises.2. In short the petition is that R.S. Plot No. 868 of Mouza Kharagpur Khas Jungle measuring an area of 0.10 acre of land belonged to one Gorelala. On 7.7.1959 he sold 7 decimals out of 10 decimals of land to one Pyarelal and the rest 3 decimals of land was sold to Badami Devi on 25.1.62. Pyarelal purchased Badami's 3 decimals of land on 23.6.1964, thus, became the owner of 10 decimals...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-10-2003
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 : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Mar-31-2003
Reported in : 2003(2)MPHT65(CG)
ORDERL.C. Bhadoo, J.1. This reference has been made by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazaar, Raipur, under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2636/2001.2. The relevant facts leading up to the reference are that one Criminal Case No. 388/94 (State v. Tirathram and 3 others) for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code was pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazaar, Raipur, in which the charges were framed against the accused persons and matter was fixed for evidence of the prosecution on 4th July, 2000 but the matter was disposed of on 23rd July, 2000 on the basis of the compromise entered between the parties. An application under Section 320(4)(b) of Cr.PC was filed by one Jivan with the averments that he be permitted to compound the offence on behalf of his deceased brother/injured/complainant Firtu alongwith an application ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Oct-03-2003
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2351; 2004(1)KLT859
ORDERJ.B. Koshy, J.1. Whether this Court in the absence of any miscarriage of justice, is bound to interfere in the order of a Magistrate allowing amendment of a petition filed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') in the absence of specific provision for amendment of pleadings in the Code of Criminal Procedure is the question considered in this case.2. First respondent herein filed a petition under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. According to her claim, the counter petitioner in the M.C. has promised a mahar of 28 grams of gold ornaments and it was given. At the time of evidence, the counter petitioner (husband) deposed that out of the mahar promised, only 14 grams of gold was given. Contention of the husband was that since the marriage was not consumated, he has obligation only to give 50% of the mahar promised. According to the wife, the marriage was already consumated. She filed a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-15-2003
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3200
R.P. Dholakia, J. 1. Rule. Learned A.P.P., Mrs.Hansa Punani, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State in both the petitions. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, both these petitions are taken up for final hearing.2. Both these petitions have been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the First Information Reports being C.R.No.II-3187 of 2002 lodged with the Danilimda Police Station and C.R.No.I-530 of 2002 lodged with Naroda Police Station and for deleting the name of the petitioner from the respective charge-sheets showing him as an absconding accused mainly on the ground that the only evidence available with the investigating agency is the statement of co-accused and also on the ground that the present petitioner is a social worker who has organized relief camp under the banner of Hajarat Shah-e-Alam Relief Camp at Ahmedabad and who has made grievance against the administration befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-23-2003
Reported in : I(2004)DMC224
P.S. Brahme, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Applicant Mehboobkhan Babarkhan has filed the present application questioning validity and legality of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision Application No. 12 of 1997 whereunder the applicant was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 200/- to each non-applicant i.e., non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2. It is not disputed that initially non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 had filed an application for maintenance Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present applicant and the learned Magistrate passed the order directing the applicant to pay maintenance. Against that order, Criminal Revision Application No. 200 of 1991 was filed by the non-applicant wherein the Sessions Judge had directed the applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs. 300/- p.m. to each of his parents. Thereafter, the present applicant filed Misc. Criminal Application No. 991 of 1995, Under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Nov-28-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)227; 2004(1)ALT301
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The second respondent gave a complaint to the first respondent alleging that the petitioner abused her against her chastity in the presence of Mandal Revenue Officer and Nodal Officer and also threatened her to kill. The first respondent registered a case in FIR No. 40 of 2003 under Sections 509, 506 and 189 of the India Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the first respondent in registering the crime is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner contends that the offences under Sections 189, 506 and 509 IPC are non-cognizable and bailable offences and, therefore, registration of crime is illegal.2. The writ petition cannot be entertained for two reasons. In effect, the petitioner is seeking to quash Crime No. 40 of 2003 of P.S., Devarapalli.3. By a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, it is now well settled that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 182 of the Code of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-11-2003
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)93; I(2005)BC203; 2003BomCR(Cri)1469; 2003CriLJ3795; 2003(2)MhLj813
S.T. Kharche, J. 1. Rule taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.Heard Mr. Kothari, learned Advocate holding for Mr. A.M. Ghare, counsel for applicants, Mr. Paliwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Thakre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 7 in both the applications.2. These two applications involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. These applications have been filed for quashing and setting aside the order, dated 17th August, 1998, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Nos. 105 of 1997 and 106 of 1997, whereby he set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class directing issuance of process against the respondent No. 1 in Criminal Case No. 13043 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and. under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.4. Mr. Kothari, learned Advocate, con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-20-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)BomCR812
1. Heard Mr. Sanyal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Fulzele, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent no.5. Other respondents though served, none appears for them.2. Contempt Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Order, dated 4th/7th March, 1994, assed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1,000-00. It will be appropriate to consider the relevant facts and circumstances which have given rise to initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the appellant. Those are as follows :-3. On 31/5/1991 offences punishable under Sections 420, 392, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against respondents 1 to 3 vide Crime No. 218/91 at Tahsil Police Station, Nagpur, and Criminal Case No. 284 of 1991 was registered and the same was in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. The sum and substance of the prosecution case w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jan-08-2003
Reported in : II(2003)BC448; (2003)133PLR493
S.S. Nijjar, J. 1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the complaint titled as M/s Brar Rice And General Mills v. Vardhman Overseas Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ferozepur (Annexure P-2), including the summoning order dated 24.5.1987 (Annexure P-3) and the order dated 7.2.1998 restoring the complaint earlier dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.9.1997(Annexure P-7).2. The petitioner is a limited Company and is engaged in the business of procuring rice. Complainant, respondent No. 1 is the supplier of rice through respondent No. 2 who is described as partner/Manager of respondent No. 1 i.e. M/s Brar Rice and General Mills Mukstar Road, Guruharsahai, Distt. Ferozepor. It is averred that in the year 1996 respondents No. 1 and 2 supplied defective rice to the petitioner resulting in the rejection of the ...
Tag this Judgment!