Court : Chhattisgarh
Decided on : Oct-17-2011
(Petition u/S 482 of the Cr.P.C) 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") has been filed by the petitioners for quashing FIR dated 29.5.2005 registered under Crime No. 194/05 and all connected criminal proceedings by police of Police Station-Bhilai Nagar, District Durg, alleging commission of offence under Section 304-B and Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The relevant and necessary facts giving rise to instant petition are that petitioner No.1- Manoj Kumar Sharma was married to Nandani, daughter of R.P. Sharma on 27.4.1999. While the deceased Nandni Sharma was residing with her husband-petitioner No.1, she died in suspicious circumstance on 20th September, 1999. An information in writing (Annexure P-1) regarding death of Nandani was sent to the Station House Officer of Police Station - Mullana, Ambala Cantt. on that very date i.e. 20th September, 1999 by one P.S. Ghosh, Flying Officer, Security ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-01-2011
1. Challenge in this Criminal Misc. Petition is to the order dated 9th January, 2006 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 10th November, 2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sawai Madhopur, allowing the application under Section 311 of CrPC and summoning Babu Lal S/o Kajod as a witness, has been affirmed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that on account of death of PW-5 Smt. Nanni Begum, the complainant filed an application under Section 311 of CrPC imploring the court to summon witness Babu Lal to prove certain documents as PW-5 Smt. Nanni Begum had expired. The learned trial court allowed the application and ordered to summon the witness Babu Lal in place of Nanni Begum. 3. A perusal of Section 311 makes it clear that unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-22-2011
1. This is an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was instituted by the de facto complainant under Section 498A/406/34 IPC and 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, being BGR Case No. 256/2011 now pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is the contention of the petitioner/de facto complainant that an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the OP No. 2 herein along with his mother before the Learned Sessions Judge, Alipore which was registered as Criminal Misc Case No. 766/2011. The said Misc Case was fixed for hearing on 11.02.2011. The said application was rejected being not pressed by the Learned Advocate of the Opposite Party No. 2 and his mother. 2. By suppressing the fact of rejection of the said application, the Opposite Party No. 2 and his mother filed another application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bearing Crimina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-29-2011
1. C.S. Agarwal, the appellant in LPA No.819 of 2010, had filed Writ Petition (Crl.) No.57 of 2010 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking appropriate writ for quashing the FIR No.264/2009 dated 23.12.2009 lodged against him and others by the Economic Offences Wing, Crime and Railways, Delhi under Sections 420/406/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said writ petition has been dismissed vide orders dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and against that order LPA No.819 of 2010 has been preferred by C.S. Agarwal. 2. Another accused in the said FIR is D.K. Jain. He has also filed LPA No.825 of 2010 challenging the same judgment, inter alia, on the ground that some of the observations in the said orders are prejudicial to him and therefore, he is also an aggrieved party. The respondents took a primary objection to the maintainability of these LPAs cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Jan-24-2011
1. Four petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 13.9.2002 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna in Complaint Case No.461(C) of 2002. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 342, 365 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.461(C) of 2002 against all the four petitioners and others on an allegation of commission of offence under Sections 323, 342, 506 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petitin that one Rameshwar Prasad Singh, grand father-in-law (Dadia Sasur) of the complainant had purchased a house over a plot appertaining to Plot No.261, Khata No.50 on his own earning and on his own volit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-14-2011
1. An important question relating to the conflict between the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution which an accused possesses and the larger societal interest in effecting crime detection is involved in this Criminal Original Petition. 2. Challenge in this Criminal Original Petition is to the order dated 04.10.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.6371 of 2011, declining to authorize the detention of the respondent herein in police custody during the initial period of 15 days of remand. 3. The respondent herein is an accused in Crime No.267 of 2011 for offences under Sections 147, 353, 506(i) IPC r/w 3(1) of PPDL Act 1992 and 4(1), 4(1A), 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. He was formally arrested on 01.10.2011 by the police, and thereafter, produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Karur, with a request for remand on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-07-2011
1. The appellant Sajjan Sharma stands convicted under section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case that led to the conviction and sentence of the appellant is based on the Fard-e-beyan (Ext. 3) of one Mukesh Kumar (PW4) recorded by the officer-in-charge of Bihpur Police Station on November 24, 1994, at 4.00 p.m. at David Door Bahiar of village Marba (in local dialect `bahiar' is the word for the agricultural lands at a distance from the dwelling part of the village). In his statement before the police officer, Mukesh Kumar stated that on that day at about 10.00 a.m., he along with his uncles Narain Kunwar and Bauku Kunwar had gone to the corn fields in David Door Bahiar carrying a licensed .315 rifle and some rounds. There, they supervised the scattering of fertilizer over the land by the farm labourers. The work was over by 2.30 p.m. and then the labourers left. In the meanwhile, one Gunanand Sharma/Sanghai, (PW3) s/o Ram Avtar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jun-17-2011
1. Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order dated 20.5.2010, passed by the SDJM, Seraikella in G.R. No.375 of 2000 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for dropping his criminal proceedings for want of sanction required under Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected. 2. Criminal prosecution of the petitioner and two others was set on motion on the basis of the written report, presented by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Icha Chaliyama, P.S.-Rajnagar, DistrictWest Singhbhum, whereupon Rajnagar P.S. Case No.45 of 2000 was registered on 15.7.2000 for the alleged offence under Sections 406/409, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Radhey Shyam Pandey and the another Shradanand Singh, Junior Engineer on the allegation of missing of three self starters, which were valued at Rs.60,000/- each, on account of irresponsibility and negligence on the part of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-09-2011
1. The petitioner, Commissioner of Police, has challenged the order dated 25th May, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, titled as „H.C. Laxmi Chand v. Government of NCT of Delhi, allowing the original application of the respondent and setting aside the order of punishment dated 28th July, 2003 passed by the Disciplinary Authority awarding the forfeiture of 4 years of approved service permanently and also setting aside the Appellate order dated 11th October, 2004 dismissing the appeal of the respondent. 2. Brief facts to comprehend the controversies are that one Lal Bahadur S/o Gorakh Bahadur, a domestic servant of Sh.Shanker Lal Sangwani S/o Sh.Prahlad Rai Sangwani, a resident of Plot No.34, Kanwar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan had committed theft in the house of his owner and had left for Delhi along with some jewelry and other articles. 3. The respondent along with Constable Sheel Bahadur was posted on Picket Duty at Farash Khan, S.N.Marg,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Jan-13-2011
1. Eight petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 5.5.1999 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No.454 of 1998, G.R.No.1436 of 1998/ Tr.No.1065 of 1999, whereby after submission of the charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 had initially filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram , Rohtas , which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 21 of 1998 against all the petitioners and Manrajo Devi . After filing of the complaint, it was sent to the police for its registration and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, an F.I.R. vide Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 454 of 1998 was registered on 10.9.1998 for t...
Tag this Judgment!