Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
This revision is not likely to come up for hearing in near future.As regards I.A. No. 2875/2017 awaiting admission an application under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C, it is directed that jail sentence of petitioner will remain under suspension on the petitioner furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of CJM Shivpuri, for his appearance before CJM concerned on 31st of August, 2017 and all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the CJM in this regard.

Cited provisions: Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code
P No.762/2014 Page 1 of 14The petitioner had lodged a written complaint on 17.12.2012 alleging that his neighbours Suresh Chand @ Mast Ram and Daya Nand Aggarwal insisted upon him for purchasing an agricultural land situated in a village at Haryana, which land stood in the name of Smt. Bina (Respondent no.2), who was stated to be the sister-in-law of Suresh Chand.The petitioner agreed for purchasing the plot of land in question and in order to fix the deal, issued one cheque of Rs.20 lacs and two cheques of Rs.10 lacs each dated 15.06.2010 drawn on HDFC Bank, Gopi Nath Market, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi.The aforesaid cheques were issued in the name of Narender and Surender as Bina (Respondent no.2) was not having any bank account.Two more cheques of Rs.15 lacs each were also issued by the petitioner.Believing the assertions of the accused persons, the petitioner paid Rs.35 lacs in cash to Respondent no.2 and Suresh Chand at his residence in the presence of Daya Nand Aggarwal and others.Later, the petitioner learnt that the property which was agreed upon to be purchased by him and against which the petitioner had made payment of Rs.45 lacs to Respondent no.2 and Suresh Chand, did not belong to them and they were not the rightful owners of the said property.P No.762/2014 Page 3 of 14On detection of such fraud, and on being confronted, a promise was made by the accused persons that the amount accepted by them would be returned in three installments.The petitioner had no option but to acquiesce.Later Respondent no.2 entered in the scene and executed an agreement to sell the property for a large sum of money as consideration.The Crl.Babu Lal Aggarwal, the informant of FIR No.58/2013 (PS Palam Vihar) challenges the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Revision Petition No.89/2014 whereby the charges framed against Respondent no.2 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, on 26.02.2014 has been set aside and Respondent no.2 has been discharged.After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted on 07.05.2013, sending up Respondent no.2 for trial.A supplementary chargesheet was also filed.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
...for the petitioners.Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, PP Mr. Mainak Gupta, Adv....for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 123 of 2018 dated 21.02.2018 under Sections 366A/370/370B/109/120B of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3/4/5/6/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and under Sections 4/17/21 of the POCSO Act.The State opposes the prayer and says that the petitioners are the owners of the hotel where minor girls would be taken and abused.The petitioners claim that the hotel was under the control and custody of a designated manager and the petitioners could not have known of the illegal activity conducted thereat by the manager.The petitioners say that none of the victims has named the petitioners.Considering the material and the gravity of the offence, it may not be fair to excuse the petitioners from custodial interrogation notwithstanding the charge- sheet being filed.If necessary, the investigating officer can file a supplementary charge-sheet.Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail is rejected.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
After marriage complainant had problems with the family members of her husband.She wished to live separately and she shifted to a rental accommodation along with her husband and daughter.However, the marriage perhaps did not click and she took away her daughter and other articles except bulky one and went to USA.Her allegations were that since her marriage, she was subjected to unwarranted remarks in the garb of jokes about standard of her family and every accused person stated that she had not brought sufficient dowry.They among themselves used to speak of "physically handling" her.On one occasion, her in laws verbally abused her parents.Her saas (mother-in-law) and nanad (sister-in-law) Crl.MC No.162/2010 Page 2 of 3 assaulted her when she resented abuses to her parents.The allegations were very vague.No occasion, date, month or year of demand of Rs. 50 lac was stated by complainant.MC No.162/2010 Page 3 of 3MM would show that the Ld. MM considered the material available on record, gave the details of the fact and came to the conclusion that no charge under Section 498A IPC or 406 IPC was made against the accused persons and discharged the accused.In revision, the Ld.MC No.162/2010 Page 1 of 3MC No.162/2010 Page 1 of 3In a revision against charge, if an accused has been discharged, the revision Court cannot brush aside the order of the Trial Court in a casual and mechanical manner as has been done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this case.A charge is liable to be framed against an accused by the Court if the material placed before the Trial Court is such that if entire admissible evidence collected by the police was considered true, commission of offence was made out.Her saas demanded Rs. 50 lac.The other complaint of complainant was about her husband taking to drinking and smoking and in insulting her in presence of others whenever she tried to check his habits.She alleged that heavy drinking and smoking of her husband created havoc in the peaceful living of her married life - to such an extent, that she thought of committing suicide.In respect of these allegations, the Trial Court observed that heavy drinking and smoking of her husband would not fall under Section 498A IPC.The Trial Court found that all her allegations about other facts were so vague that no case was made out under Section 498A and 406 IPC.I consider that the Trial Court rightly judged the material available on record in order to find out whether the charge should be framed against the accused person or not.The Ld.Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate that even if all allegations made by the complainant were considered true, no case under Section 498A or 406 could have been made out.This petition is allowed.The order dated 16th November, 2009 of Ld.Additional Sessions judge is set aside.The order dated 11th March, 2008 of Ld. MM is restored.

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code
[Order of the Court was made by P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J] The petitioner is the father of the detenu, viz., I.T. @ RamKumar, S/o.Thangaraj, aged about 22 years.The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.167/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 27.11.2015, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f)of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, taking note of the ground case in Crime No.888of 2015 on the file of E2 Madhichiam Police Station registered for allegedoffences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code@ 147, 148, 341, 392, 506(ii) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code r/w 34 and 397of the Indian Penal Code.The Detaining Authority, expressing subjective satisfactionthat the detenu conformed to the definition of the "Goonda" and that hispresence at large would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order andalso expressing subjective satisfaction that it was very likely that thedetenu would come out on bail in the ground case, passed the impugned detention order.The said order is challenged in the present Habeas CorpusPetition.The submissions made by the learned Additional PublicProsecutor in reply to the above said contentions raised by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner are also heard.In Paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention, the DetainingAuthority, expressing his subjective satisfaction regarding the possibilityof the detenu coming out on bail, made the following observation:"I am aware that Thiru.Thangaraj is in remand inthe ground case in E.2 Madhichiam P.S. Cr.No.888/2015 for the offences undersection 147, 148, 302 IPC @ Sec.147, 148, 341, 392, 506(ii) & 302 IPC r/w 34and 397 IPC at the Central Prison, Madurai; and I am also aware that his bailapplication filed in the above said ground case was dismissed by theJ.M.No.II, Madurai in Crl.I am also awarethat Thiru.M.P.No.3084/2015 dated 03.09.2015 to an accused Thiru.Pandi @ Kamma Pandi s/o Sakkarai Thevar concerned in C2 Subramaniapuram P.S. Cr.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and thisCourt sets aside the order of detention dated 27.11.2015, made inNo.167/BCDFGISSSV/2015, by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai and directs therelease of the detenu by name I.T. @ Ram Kumar, S/o.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..

Cited provisions: Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code
They have challenged their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard learned counsel for the applicants.We have also heard learned counsel appearing in the above two applications on behalf of the State.The sum and substance of the allegation on the basis of which the trial proceeded was that on 10.02.2016 at about 10.45 p.m. the victim requested for a lift in a Scorpio vehicle from Ultadanga Hudco more to Ruby and that the victim was permitted to enter the car on his agreeing to pay Rs.20/- for the lift; that thereafter, accused nos. 1, 2 and 3, of whom one was driving the vehicle, stopped the vehicle at a distant place en-route to Ruby and thereafter threatened the victim and also assaulted him by punching with hand and the victim was also threatened of harm using a screw driver; all intended to extract out of the victim his personal belongings including money and ATM cards.According to the prosecution appropos the threat, the wallet of the victim was taken by the three persons and they stopped in an ATM to draw money from the account of the victim.Though the victim did not share the ATM PIN, it was for the purpose of non-disclosure of ATM PIN that the accused persons further threatened the victim.It appears that in the T.I. Parade and in Court the victim identified the accused persons.The recovery evidenced by the search and seizure lists tends to indicate that the same material was recovered from the three accused persons.The possibility of the case in hand being one squarely falling under Sections 394 or 397 of the Indian Penal Code or one which could be tapered down to lower counts are matters that deserve to be examined.The applications being CRAN 4068 of 2019 and CRAN 4172 of 2019 are, thus, disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertakings.[Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J] [Arijit Banerjee, J.]

Cited provisions: Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Shri Rahul Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.Dr. (Smt) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the State.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The petitioner has filed this first application under Section 439, Cr.P.C.The petitioner has been arrested on 13/11/2015 by Police Station Dharnabada, District Guna (M.P.) in connection with Crime No. 354/07 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 303, 506-B, 325, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.Charge-sheet has been filed where allegation of attempt to murder is made.The petitioner appears to be the main accused who has assaulted the injured on the head with the sharp-cutting object.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR which discloses his name as Kalia.The State counsel by perusing 2 Mcrc.13906/15 Hari Singh Vs.State of M.P.the case-diary informs that the petitioner is also known by the name of Kalia, Kelash and Hari Singh.Apart from the above, the petitioner has large number of criminal cases as criminal antecedents.In view of above, no case for grant of bail is made out.The application stands rejected.

Cited provisions: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
By virtue of this Petition, the Petitioner who was the complainant before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) seeks setting aside of the order dated 04.02.2013 whereby the Petitioner's complaint for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was dismissed for non appearance of the Petitioner (the Complainant) and the accused was acquitted.The short ground submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner for setting aside of the impugned order is that the Petitioner's absence on the date the complaint was dismissed was not intentional and thus the learned ACMM erred in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the Respondents.After recording pre-summoning evidence, the Respondents were Crl.The learned ACMM noticed that the complainant absented on large number of hearings compelling the learned ACMM to dismiss the complaint in terms of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by the impugned order.The relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-LP 179/2013 Page 1 of 5"As per the record, the complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant on 06.06.2006 and after completion of pre summoning evidence, vide order dt. 25.08.2008, cognizance of the offence u/s. 500 IPC was taken by Ld. Predecessor.Accursed Jai Karan Singh and Smt. Munesh were summoned.Both the accused persons appeared before the court and thereafter, vide order dt. 13.01.2010, notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. qua commission of offence u/s 500 IPC was given to both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The matter was accordingly adjourned to 03.03.2010 for Complainant Evidence.Again on 22.05.2010, the complainant was absent and counsel for the complainant moved an exemption application on his behalf which was allowed.On 21.08.2010, nobody was present however, no adverse order was passed and the case was adjourned to 10.11.2010 for Complainant Evidence.Further perusal of the ordersheet reveals that despite sufficient opportunities, the complainant has not led any evidence so far and last & final opportunities were also given to the complainant on two occasions.Today also the complainant is not present and the counsel for complainant has moved an application on his behalf seeking exemption stating inter alia that the complainant cannot attend the court as he has gone to Hastinapur, U.P. to attend a marriage.LP 179/2013 Page 2 of 5Counsel Sh.Nitin Garg is present on his behalf who has no Vakalatnama in his favour.In the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any justifiable ground to grant exemption to the complainant.The application is dismissed.Since the complainant is absent without justifiable ground, I deem it fit to dismiss the present complaint case u/s 256 Cr.PC due to non appearance of the complainant.

Cited provisions: Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code
They were stated to have suffered custodial violence, torture and inhuman treatment.A2 obtained regular bail.Now A1 seeks anticipatory bail.He is an Head Constable.This petition is for anticipatory bail, in other words, issuance of a direction in the event of his arrest to release him on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.2. Offences alleged are under Sections 323, 330, 355 and 506 (ii) IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act read with Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Petitioner is A1 in this case.This is his fourth petition for anticipatory bail.It all started with the missing of a cellphone from a woman.Case of theft has been registered by R1 Mambalam Police in Crime Nos.1895 and 1896 of 2014 under Section 379 IPC.In connection with the said theft case, certain juveniles, who were alleged to have contravened law (Juvenile in conflict with Law) have been taken to R1 Mambalam Police Station.It has become a hell for them.Even if they get bail, they continue to remain there because of their inability to produce sureties.There was outcry from various quarters to check the police power of arrest envisaged in Section 41 Cr.P.C.He has not responded to their notice.In view of the foregoings, I do not find any perceptible change of circumstances since the dismissal of his earlier anticipatory bail petition.O.P.No.30438 of 201529.02.2016

Cited provisions: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code
Case is listed today for admission.Case diary is available.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.C. No. 3552/2015 has been arrested on 05.03.2015 and sent to jail by order dated 06.04.2015 of the Trial Court.Learned counsel for the applicant / accused submit that the applicant is a labour and he had gone to labour work at Bhopal, and due to the illiteracy, he was not aware of the arrest warrant issued against him.It is further submit that in trial total 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined, only prosecutrix is to be examined.He further submitted that applicant was not involved in the offences and only on this ground he was released on bail by order dated 17.01.2005 in M.Cr.Therefore, prayed for bail.Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has opposed the application and prayed for dismissal of the same.Although the applicant was remained absent since last 9 (Raju Khan Vs.

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code
ORDER Subba Rao, J.One Desappa was murdered and Certain persons were prosecuted under Section 302, Penal Code, in connection with that murder, The petitioners gave statements in that case under Section 161, Criminal P. C, in connection with the death of Desappa before the Taluk Magistrate, Dharmavaram.They stated to the effect that they had actually witnessed the assault which eventually resulted in the death of Desappa and some of them bad been asked to watch over the injured persons.Later on, in the preliminary enquiry they denied the earlier story and stated that they made the statements before the Taluk Magistrate as the police threatened them and that the statements were really made at the dictation of the police.Subsequently these witnesses were given up in the Sessions Court.The accused were tried and acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Anantapur.The learned Sessions Judge held on a consideration of the evidence that the prosecution failed to prove the case set up by them.The application was filed before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Dharmavaram, in the latter part of the year 1946, Both the Sub-Magistrate and the District Magistrate held that in the interests of justice a complaint should be filed against the petitioners under Section 193, Penal Code.It is no doubt true that either the statement made before the taluk Magistrate under Section 161, Criminal P. C., Cr the evidence given in p. e, o. no, l of 1946 on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Dharmavaram, is false and false to the knowledge of the petitioners.

Cited provisions: Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code
Two cartons of Sunlight Soap marked Exts.II and III containing the cakes in waxed paper bearing label "Sunlight Soap -- Lever Bros. (India) Ltd." were recovered.At the time of the search there was an Expert from Lever Bros. to help test whether the cakes were genuine or not.JUDGMENT Debabrata Mookerjee, J.The appellant was tried by a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta upon two charges under Sections 420 and 486, Penal Code.He was acquitted of the charge of cheating under Section 420, but was convicted under Section 486 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.The facts briefly stated are that on 6-7-1954 the appellant's shop at Raja Katra styled Sinha Bros. was searched in the presence of witnesses.It appears the cakes were later sent for chemical examination and report was received in due course which revealed that they were not genuine Sunlight cakes it having been considered that they were inferior stuff and attempted to be passed oft as genuine Sunlight Soap of Lever Bros. Ltd.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the. charges and the defence was that there was no intention to cheat; furthermore on the evidence in the case the elements of an offence under Section 486 had not been established.No defence witnesses were examined.The learned Magistrate, however, believed the evidence produced by the prosecution and while acquitting the appellant of the charge of cheating convicted him of an offence under Section 486, Penal Code.The other witnesses from Lever Bros. proved how the spurious soaps were different from the real ones in colour, weight and smell.He deposed that the Magistrate's order made on 7-2-1955 discharging the appellant was made on the ground of absence of the complainant.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT K.L. Shrivastava, J.This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-9-82 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.Dhar in Criminal Case No. 499 of 1982 holding that for want of sanction under Section 197(1)(b) of the CrP.C, 1973 (for short 'the Code') cognisance of offences cannot be taken against the non-applicant Harbans Singh Chhabra, Tahsildar Badnawar, District Dhar.The circumstances giving rise to the petition are these.The applicant filed a criminal complaint against the non-applicant Harbans Singh and three others for action under the Code in respect of offences under Sections 448,219,219/109, 506 and 427/34,I.P.C. on the ground that the said Harbans Singh in collusion with the other co-accused persons unauthorisedly issued a notice to him to close the ventilator of his residence and despite being told that under the M.P.L.R. Code, 1959, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, got the said ventilator closed.

Cited provisions: Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code