Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
354 and 376 of IPC.As per the prosecution story before the learned Trial Court in brief was that, on 09.02.2013 the prosecutrix with her two year old daughter, Poonam was sleeping at her home at village, Vasantpura.Her husband had gone to other city for earning.In the night, Veersingh was standing in her courtyard.On being asked why he has come to her house the accused embraced her and shut her mouth and committed rape.After commission of the act, the accused ran away from her house.On the following day she reported this to her brother-in-law (Jeth).She went to the Police Station Raun, District Bhind to lodge report.On the basis of her report Crime No.27/2013 under Section 456 and 354 of IPC has been registered.On 15.02.2013 she filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bhind about the commission of rape.Therefore, Section 376 of IPC was added.completing investigation charge-sheet was filed.After committal of the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges and after adducing the evidence M.Cr.C. No.1961/2014 pronounced the impugned judgment.We have given our thoughtful consideration.The prosecutrix is a married woman of 22 years.The medical officer (PW-7) has submitted the report Ex-P3, after examining the prosecutrix.No internal and external injury has been found on the body of the prosecutrix.There has been some enmity between the complainant and the accused.The defense witnesses have deposed that 10,000/- and two bags of Bazraa was given to Banwari the husband of the prosecutrix by the accused.This version has been admitted by PW-4, the sister-in-law of the prosecutrix.This gave rise to a valid and reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.No injury on the body of the prosecutrix, the previous enmity and contradictions and omissions brought on record has been clearly discussed by the learned Trial Court.The learned Trial Court has also given the cogent reasons for its decision.That being so, we decline to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court.Hence, petition for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.15 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323 and 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/7 CRL.O.P.No.67 of 2020The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2019, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.15 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.27.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order arb ToThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.67 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.arb Crl.O.P.No.67 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.44 of 2020 27.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7

Cited provisions: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code
Pankaj D.Kavale, Advocate for the Applicant.Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent/State.rejection of first application bearing No.2420 of 20126 vide orderdated 06/12/2017 by this Court.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 :::attention to the Order dated 28/12/2017 passed below Exhibit 22thereby granting bail to co-accused Ilyas Abdul Jabber Choudhariand argued that this accused person has actually received thediesel stolen by the accused persons.He is granted bail by thelearned trial Court.The learned Counsel further drew myattention to the Order dated 28/11/2018 passed in Criminal BailApplication No.1175 of 2017 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court(Coram : Prakash D. Naik, J) and argued that co-accused TayyabMansoor Shaikh, who has installed the electric motor for stealingthe diesel, is granted bail.With this, the learned Counsel arguedthat as the co-accused are released on bail, the applicant is alsoentitled to be released on bail.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed theapplication by contending that co-accused Tayyab Mansoor Shaikhis granted bail on the premises that he was working as a plumberand had installed the electric motor as per the duty assigned tohim.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued thatanother accused Ilyas Abdul Jabber Choudhari, who is released onbail by the learned trial Court was accused of receiving the stolenproperty, whereas according to the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, the present applicant was in-charge of laying down thepipeline illegally for stealing diesel from the supply main of thePetroleum Company and while doing so, he convinced theGaikwad RD 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 ::: (1)BANo.17482018.docwitnesses examined by the prosecution not to oppose the work oflaying down underground pipeline, which was meant for stealingthe diesel in huge quantity from the supply main of the PetroleumCompany.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 :::4 I have considered the submissions so advanced.6 However, the trial Court is directed to expedite thetrial and to finish it of as early as possible and in any case within aperiod of two years from the date of receipt of this of this Court.::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2019 04:24:05 :::

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.This application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.02.2019 as well as summoning order dated 01.07.2019 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No. 1063 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 18 of 2019, under Sections 352, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bewana, District Ambedkar Nagar.It is also submitted that as per the provisions of explanation clause of Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case, a report made by police officer in a case, which discloses, after investigation, commission of a non-cognizable offence, shall be deemed to be a complaint, and the police officer, by whom such report is made, shall be deemed to be complainant.P.C. and thereafter his witnesses under Section 202, Cr.With the reasons mentioned above, the order of the Magistrate is only required to be modified and not to be quashed as a whole.The application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed partly for treating the charge-sheet as complaint."The application is, accordingly, allowed.

Cited provisions: Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
She was medically examined.Present petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the prosecutrix / petitioner for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge vide orders dated 17.07.2014 and 12.08.2014 in case FIR No.290/2014 registered under Sections 323/341/342/354/354B/376/506 IPC at PS Harsh Vihar.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file.The respondent No.2 moved an application Crl.M.C. 146/2015 Page 1 of 3 for anticipatory bail.Vide order dated 17.07.2014, observing that there were no allegations of commission of offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and other offences were bailable in nature, anticipatory bail was granted.Subsequently, after about 24 days on 05.08.2014, the victim recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement where she levelled allegations of rape, molestation, insertion of finger in the vagina.Sections 376/354B IPC were added in the FIR.It prompted the respondent No.2 to seek anticipatory bail under those offences.Vide order dated 12.08.2014 the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail.Aggrieved by the said orders, the instant petition has been filed for cancellation of bail.M.C. 146/2015 Page 1 of 3Admittedly, the prosecutrix and the respondent No.2 are related to each other.There appears to be a property dispute between the parties.In the alleged history, she did not complain about any sexual assault.It is relevant to note that she was accompanied to the hospital by an NGO lady Paramjeet Kaur.After the respondent No.2 was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 17.07.2014 in which it was observed that there were no allegations of offence under Section 354 IPC, after an inordinate delay, the prosecutrix recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement where she made vital improvements and introduced a new story levelling allegations of sexual assault.No medical examination was conducted thereafter.Charge-sheet is stated to have been filed.There are no allegations if after the grant of anticipatory bail the respondent No.2 ever Crl.M.C. 146/2015 Page 2 of 3 misused the liberty.The impugned order dated 12.08.2014 was passed in the presence of the complainant's counsel.The petitioner being duly educated is not expected to omit levelling charge of rape at first instance.M.C. 146/2015 Page 2 of 3Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no sufficient reasons / grounds to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the Court below.The petition lacks merits and is dismissed.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JULY 21, 2016 / tr Crl.M.C. 146/2015 Page 3 of 3M.C. 146/2015 Page 3 of 3

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied against the said order the present revisional application is filed with a prayer for setting aside the said order and to pass necessary order as it thinks fit and proper.Learned Advocate Mr. D. Roy Chowdhury assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Jayanta Dutta argued as follows:-In the petition of complaint filed before the learned Magistrate transpired the allegation under Section 498A/506(II)/427/120B/34 I.P.C. and as a result the cognizance was taken and the matter was transferred to the learned J.M. for trial.

Cited provisions: Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
the ground of non-consummation of marriage due to willful neglect on the part of the wife was allowed by the Court below.The wife initiated proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Now, he wants to include the records of this proceeding and also his oral evidence on that basis as evidence in the 2 present suit.We feel that the section 498A legal proceedings when started some two years after the divorce have no direct connection with this proceeding, although they might be a result of a further fall out between the husband and the wife.All the records of present proceedings would only make the present proceedings unnecessarily time consuming.For All these reasons, we do not entertain the application (CAN 10038 of 2017) under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The same is hereby dismissed.( I. P. Mukerji,J.) (Amrita Sinha, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 09.02.2016 relating to Crime No.135/2015 registered at Police Station Dharnawada, District Guna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 326A, 34 of IPC.Thereafter, the victim was referred to the District Hospital, Guna (M.P.) and he left the hospital against the advice of the doctor and 2 Mcrc.5435.2016 Raj Vs.Under these circumstances, at the most offence under Section 324 of IPC may constitute which is triable by Magistrate.Sufficient time will be required in conclusion of the trial and the applicant cannot be kept in custody for an unlimited period.If the applicant is not released on bail then his future will be spoiled in the company of the hardened criminals inside the jail.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code
C.C. as per rules.Heard on the point of admission and the filed certified copy of the judgment dated 25.09.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, in ST No.500154/2016 is perused.Appeal appears to be arguable hence, admitted for final hearing.Record of trial Court be requisitioned.No fresh notice is necessary to the respondent as Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State has appeared.Appearing counsel for the parties are heard on I.A.No.7776/2017 filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 for suspension of jail sentence of appellant- Chhotu alias Nisar Pathan awarded by the trial Court.Appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 363 of the IPC to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 506-B of IPC to undergo one year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.It appears that fine amount has already been deposited by the appellant before the trial Court, and appellant has been sentenced under Section 363 of IPC for a period of three years and under Section 506-B of IPC to undergo one year RI and there is no possibility of early hearing of this appeal, hence, I.A.No.7776/2017 is allowed and it is ordered that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) by the Appellant-Chhotu alias Nisar Pathan with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, his jail sentences shall remain suspended till disposal of this appeal and he be released on bail.The appellant is further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court firstly on 22.11.2017 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court for the same purpose in future.

Cited provisions: Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on I.A. No. 2279/15, second application u/S 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the appellant-Rampal Singh for suspension of jail sentence.Appellant's first application I.A. No. 7058/15 was rejected on 08/12/2014 on merits with the liberty to repeat the same after three months.On behalf of the appellant this repeat application has been filed on the fresh ground that at the time of the first application for suspension of sentence it was not considered that offence under section 467 of Cr.P.C. is not made out against the present appellant and after a period of three months the appellant has filed this second application.The appellant submits that he has been in custody for more than eight months now.The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 27.08.2014 in Sessions Trial No.262/2013 by 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior and sentenced as under:- Under Section Conviction Imprisonment Fine imprisonment if Detail liew of Fine Sentence of deposited Rs.467 of IPC 5 years, RI 1,000/- 3 months R.I.Appellant has been convicted for keeping with him forged Cr.A. No. 922/2 0 1 4 (Rampal Singh Vs.State of M.P.) mark-sheets and also mark-sheets which are blank and does not belong to Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi and Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi.Cr.A. No. 922/2 0 1 4It is further argued that appellant-Rampal has received Rs. 3000/- from Anantram towards preparing a forged mark-sheet in the name of his sister-Saraswati.Co-accused Chotelal was acquitted by the trial Court.Apellant has been in custody since 27.08.2014 and during the trial he was in custody for about 32 days.In this manner appellant remained in jail for about 8 months.State of M.P.) of the trials and thereafter appeals in criminal cases, for no fault of the accused, confers a right upon him to apply for bail.If an appeal is not disposed or within the aforesaid period of 5 years, for no fault of the convicts, such convicts may be released on bail on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the Court, I deem it appropriate to allow the application.Accordingly, the application (I.A. No. 2279/15) is allowed.I.A. No. 2279/15 stand disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(S. K. Palo) Judge neetu

Cited provisions: Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code
Shri Manish Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant.This is application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Applicant Dharmendra s/o Shri Madan Singh Gurjar, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 44/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 325,329,341,323,294,506/34,149 of IPC registered at Police Station Bercha, District Shajapur M.P.Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier case was registered under Section 341,323,294 and 506 IPC and in that case, the applicant has been released on bail.Subsequently, the Police has added the Sections under Section 325,329 and 149 of IPC.The offence under Section 329 IPC is non-bailable offence.It is submitted that after granting the bail, the applicant has not misused the liberty and the applicant is ready to co-operate with the trial.In such circumstances, he be granted anticipatory bail because he is apprehending that he may be arrested for the offence under Section 325 and 329 of 2 IPC.On the other hand, learned PL for the non-applicant/State opposes the prayer.Applicant shall ensure that he would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be binding on him.It is made clear, that if the applicant will breach any of the condition, then this order shall automatically stand cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerning 3 Court shall be free to take appropriate action to secure the presence of the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) VACATION JUDGE M.Jilla.

Cited provisions: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Shri Praveen Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the applicant.Shri R.N. Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State.This is the third application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail.Both the previous applications were dismissed as withdrawn.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 193/2012 registered at Police Station-Chachai, District Anuppur for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 506-B and 326 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.There is possibility of compromise between the parties.The applicant has no criminal past.I have perused the case diary.It has been specifically alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the complainant by an Axe, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his head.In these circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory.

Cited provisions: Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code
The four complainants are partnership firms.The petitioners are facing prosecution/trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short) in six different complaints filed by M/s. Super Enterprises, M/s. Shubham Traders, M/s. Decent Electronics and M/s. Trading Systems.M/s. Super Enterprises and M/s. Shubham Traders have filed two complaints each through their partner-Mr. D.P. Gupta.The petitioners herein had filed an application before the Trial Court with the following prayers :-This application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 30th July, 2007, recording that the six different complaints deal with six different cheques which constitute a different cause of action.It was recorded that the complainants are different and were not filed by the same person and therefore joint trial cannot be ordered.Learned Trial Court recorded that the application filed was under Sections 219/220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short).It was also noticed that this was a second application filed by the petitioners praying for the same relief.

Cited provisions: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code