Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(4)SC456; 2008(I)OLR(SC)827; 2008(4)SCALE294; 2008AIRSCW3771; 2008(2)AICLR736; 2008(3)KCCRSN202
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court quashing the proceedings initiated against the respondents 1 to 7, in purported exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). A prayer was made before learned Sessions Judge, Patna to quash the proceedings in Criminal Revision No. 817 of 2001. Learned S.D.J.M., Patna in Pirbahore PHB Case No. 120 of 2000 had rejected the prayer of discharge made by the aforesaid respondents. The prayer was made in terms of Section 239 Cr.P.C.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Appellant was married to respondent No. 3 Rajesh Kumar on 1.7.1998. Alleging that she was being harassed and tortured both mentally and physically for having not met the dowry demands, complaint was made alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Sections 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1702; JT2008(3)SC410; 2008(3)KarLJ393; 2008(3)SCALE490; (2008)4SCC541; 2008AIRSCW1993; (2008)2SCC(Cri)455; 2008(3)AIRKarR233
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the application filed before it in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'). Prayer in the application before the High Court was for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 273/2006 including the complaint on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gulbarga. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:Respondent was appointed as a Peon in K.L.E. Society's Women Arts and Commerce College in the year 1992 of which the appellant No. 3 was the Principal at the relevant point of time. Appellant No. 2 was the Secretary at the relevant point of time and the Society was represented by its Chairman, Board of Management. He resigned from service on 17.12.2003. The complaint was filed on 13.1.2006 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 403, 405 and 415 read with Section 34 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1571; 2008CriLJ2048; JT2008(3)SC130; 2008(3)SCALE325; 2008AIRSCW1735; 2008(3)AIRKarR144; 2008(9)SCC718
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. The appellants Shantabai (A-1), Sajan (A-2) and Govind (A-3) have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1995 confirming the conviction and sentence for life in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short 'the IPC'] and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with default clause to undergo R.I. for six months awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, in Sessions Case No. 160/1993.2. In all five accused persons were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, under Sections 147, 148 and 302, IPC, read with Section 149, IPC. A-1, A-2 and A-3 were found guilty of the murder of Gunwant Nivrati Dhumale, while Venkar (A-4) and Anshabai (A-5) were acquitted of the charges framed against them.3. Briefly stated, the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1564; 2008CriLJ1914; JT2008(3)SC279; 2008(3)SCALE338; 2008AIRSCW1717; 2008(2)AICLR455; 2008(4)KCCRSN258
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision, the accused comes up before this Court by way of this appeal.3. By its impugned order, the High Court allowed the Revision and directed the Trial Court to re-hear the application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by applying its judicious mind and to pass the appropriate order according to law.4. The following facts will be necessary for our purpose. On 12.11.2003 a written report came to be made at Police Station Neem-ka-Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan by one Rohitas Kumar, contending therein that while he was having his dinner at his home, he was attacked by Ram Prasad Kailash, Pawan Kumar, Krishan Kumar, Chameli and Manju. It was asserted therein that Chemely and Manju also assaulted his wife Maya Devi. On the basis of this report offences were registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 452, 24/149, 323, 324/149 and 308/149 IPC. The investigation proceed...
Tag this Judgment!