Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jan-19-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)BLJR914; 2005CriLJ3070; [2005(3)JCR411(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal. J.1. Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.2. In the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 19.6.2002 passed in Baliapur police station case No. 52/2001, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2420 of 2001 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad took cognizance of the offence against the petitioners under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The allegation, inter alia, made in the first information report is that on 1.9.2001 three persons, namely, Ajit Pramanik, Shiv Prasad Mahato and Manik Pramanik informed the informant that his son, Deepak Bhandari was missing from his in-laws' house since the last night. The informant started searching for his son and when he was unable to trace him out, he alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-30-2005
Reported in : 2005CriLJ3166; 2005(2)KLT895
K. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The petitioner is the Finance Minister of State of Kerala. He was the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala till 4.9.2004. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P-6 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.P.No. 3157 of 2003 and Ext.P-7 summons issued to the petitioner.2. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram as C.M.P.No. 3157 of 2003 arraying Sri. A.K. Antony, the then Chief Minister and Sri. Oommen Chandy, the present Chief Minister describing him as the Convenor of United Democratic Front (as he then was). It was alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the accused fabricated a Fax Message purporting to be one issued by Sri. Ahammed Patel, General Secretary of All India Congress Committee to the Speaker of Legislative Assembly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-06-2005
Reported in : AIR2005SC2410; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)370; 2005(2)BLJR1296; 2005CriLJ2615; II(2005)DMC1SC; JT2005(5)SC347; 2005(4)KarLJ208; (2005)4SCC468
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, Shantha @ Ushadevi and Kusuma, a minor represented by her mother-guardian filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Petition No.2 of 1991 before the trial Court against respondent claiming for maintenance. The said criminal petition was allowed by the trial court by its order dated January 20, 1993 awarding a sum of Rs.500/- to the appellant, the wife of the respondent and a sum of Rs.300/- to Kusuma, the daughter for maintenance. The appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.47 of 1993 under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming an amount of Rs.5,365/- as arrear maintenance calculated from January 20, 1993 (i.e. the date of the trial court's order granting maintenance) to August 31, 1993. Respondent filed a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Tumkur being Crl. Revision Petition No.35 of 1993 against the order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-22-2005
Reported in : 2005CriLJ2957; (2005)1GLR709
J.N. Bhatt, J.Prelude (Focal Point)Let us at the very outset, evidently record, remember, and recollect that ;'A civilisation is judged by the way it treats its criminals.'1. In this group of criminal appeals, specially assigned to the Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the central theme, the core issue and the main point, in focus, has been, as to whether the trial Court, on being satisfied or in presence of special and adequate reasons peculiar to the accused, to be mentioned in writing, in the judgment of the Court, in finding accused guilty, 'for a first offence' either by evidence or 'by raising the plea of guilty'; is competent to impose for such 'first offence';(i) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months and fine of less than Five Hundred Rupees for the offence punishable under the proviso to Sub-clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 66 of the 'Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949'. (B. P. Act')?And(ii) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-31-2005
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT253
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. These Criminal Revision Petitions and Crl.M.C. No. 2605 of 2003 are filed challenging a common order passed by the Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode dismissing five Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by accused Nos. 4, 6 to 12 and 14 to 16 in S.C.No. 124 of 2002 on the file of that Court contending that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against them and hence they may be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Crl.R.P. No. 661 of 2003 is filed by the 14th accused in the case. He along with the 11th accused filed Crl.M.P. No. 171 of 2002 praying that he may be discharged. Crl.R.P. No. 782 of 2003 is filed by accused No. 7. A7 to A10 filed Crl.M.P. No. 198 of 2002 for the very same relief. Crl.R.P. No. 865 of 2003 is filed by the 8th accused in Crl.M.P.No. 198 of 2002. Crl.R.P.No. 938 of 2003 is filed by the 5th accused. Though he had not filed any petition for discharge, he has filed the Criminal Revis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-04-2005
Reported in : 2005CriLJ4180; ILR2005KAR4478; 2006(2)KarLJ616
ORDERK. Ramanna, J.1. An unsuccessful petitioner-accused has come up with this petition, challenging the order dated 27-12-2004 in S.C. No. 64/2002, passed by the Fast Track Court-VIII Sessions, Bangalore City.2. The brief facts leading to the case are the petitioner has been chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the I.P.C. The trial of the case was excepted to commence on 27-12-2004 and the trial was to be conducted in an in camera form. At that time, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted before the Court-below to conduct the trial in the Court hall itself in the form of in camera, excluding the presence of unconcerned, as it is a normal procedure and it is not convenient to hold and conduct trial in the private chamber of the Trial Court. But the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was rejected and the Trial Court, directed the petitioner-accused, the Counsel for the petitioner and the prosecutor to come to the chamber of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-22-2005
Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR1454
P.B. Gaikwad, J.1. Accused Vitthal s/o Gyanba Gaikwad being dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 12.01.2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Case No. 67/1998 directing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default R.1. for six months filed present appeal. 2. The facts in nutshell leading to the present appeal are as follows : That, marriage of deceased Panchashila daughter of PW 1 Vitthal Sitaram Shinde and mother of PW2 Kavita, PW 3 Yogendra and PW 4 Savita was performed with the present appellant in the year 1979. PW 1 Vitthal Sitaram Shinde is the resident of Purna District Parbhani. After the marriage of Panchashila with the accused, she started residing with her father-in-law and mother-in-law at village Rathi-Dutka. The accused who is serving in the Irrigation Department used to visit Rathi-Dutka. After two years' of marriage, the accus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-22-2005
Reported in : 2006CriLJ1270; 2006(3)MhLj163
V.G. Palshikar, Acg. C.J.1. The above writ petitions were heard by us and the judgment was reserved. Then I prepared the judgment of the Bench in November, 2005 and circulated it to my learned colleagues on the Bench. However to my dismay, I was informed by both my colleagues that they do not agree with the view taken by me on the presumption that they agree with me. I then read the majority view rendered by Hon'ble Shri Justice D.B. Bhosale. Having given my anxious consideration to the views expressed I found it impossible to agree with the majority view. Hence this opinion.2. I regret my incapacity to convince my learned colleagues to the view that I propagated. In my humble opinion, the majority view has the result of virtually destroying the safeguards provided under the MCOC Act. The majority view reads several things into the Act which are not legislated. It has the effect of permitting the Special Court under the Act not only to take cognizance of private complaint alleging comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Jul-13-2005
Reported in : II(2005)DMC697; 2005(II)OLR277
B.P. Das, J.1. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the proceeding in Criminal Appeal No. 55/1991 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Puri arising out of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puri in G.R. Case No. 1396 of 1989 on 10.4.1991.2. The brief facts leading to this application are that opposite party No. 3, who is the wife of the petitioner, filed an F.I.R. against the petitioner and others 5.7.89, basing upon which the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 1396 of 1989 was registered. The petitioner was charged under Sections 498-A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'the I.P.C.) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, the D.P. Act) read with Section 34 of I.P.C. It is worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner was charged along with other co-accused persons and ultimately, the petitioner along with them was convicted by the learne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Feb-27-2005
Reported in : 2006CriLJ1764
ORDERDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J.1. This order shall dispose of M. Cr. P. No. 771/2005 being on application filed by the applicants under Section 320 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. for composition of a non-compoundable offence under Section 498A of the I P.C.1A. Briefly stated the facts are as under: Applicant No. 4- Naresh Kumar Agrawal was married to Smt. Manju Devi Agrawal on 11-6-1985. Applicants No. 1 and 2 are the parents and applicants No. 3, 4 and 5 are the brothers of Naresh Kumar Agrawal, applicant No. 6 is wife of one Premchand, younger brother of Naresh Kumar Agrawal and applicants No. 7 and 8 are the brother-in-laws of Naresh Kumar Agrawal.2. Upon a complaint being lodged by Jaiprakash Agrawal on 5-11-1985 for harassment of his sister Smt. Manju Devi Agrawal by the applicants herein on account of demand for dowry, offences under Section 498A of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were registered. After investigation, the applicants were prosecuted and co...
Tag this Judgment!