Sikkim Court May 2012 Judgments
Mintu Singha Roy Vs. Mrs. Tenzing Dolkar and Another
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: May-22-2012
1. This Criminal Misc. Case arises out of General Register Case No.94 of 2008, under Section 409/420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short), arising out of Gangtok Sadar Police Station Case No.65(5)07 dated 11th May, 2007, pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim at Gangtok, wherein the petitioner has been required to appear and answer on the charges as herein stated. 2. Mr. Subrata Kumar Roy Karmakar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that a bare reading of the First Information Report read with the Charge-Sheet filed by the police, do not disclose any offence under Section 409 and Section 420, IPC, and, therefore, the proceedings pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate requires to be quashed. In support of his submission, a large number of decisions have been cited, amongst which is the decision in the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others (2009)1 SCC 516: 2009 AIR SCW 1836 where the principle of law ...
Tag this Judgment!State of Sikkim Vs. Santosh Kumar Bardewa and Others
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: May-04-2012
1. This Revision Petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 24-10-2011 in Private Complaint Case No.1 of 2010, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Division-I, Sikkim at Gangtok, by which an application under sub-section (6) of Section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed on behalf of the complainant had been rejected. 2. It appears that a complaint for defamation under Sections 499/500 r/w Section 34, IPC had been filed by the State of Sikkim against the respondents under Section 199(2) r/w Section 237(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the person defamed was the then Governor of Sikkim, Shri V. Rama Rao. 3. Shri V. Rama Rao having since demitted his office and his evidence being essential for the success of the case of the complainant, the aforesaid application for his examination as a witness was accordingly filed. 4. It is the submission of Mr. J.B. Pradhan, the Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, tha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›