Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
The relationship between various persons who are concerned in this case is as described below.Nukati was married1 to Radu; Radu died.Later she was kept by Damdia as his wife.Deceased Joharu was her son from Radu.He accompanied her at Damdia's house.A day prior to the incident Nanbu had beaten his wife.He then left but returned next morning.While he was thus returning he found Joharu coming back home with some 'Ma-huwa fruits.The accused stopped him and abused him and ran after him.Joharu tried to escape but the accused struck him with an arrow.Nankya by that time had arrived there and he tried to save him but before this could be done the arrow had been shot.Nukati, mother of the deceased, too had come out and seen the incident.The arrow pierced through the thigh of the deceased through and through.JUDGMENT Nevaskar, J.1. Accused Nanbu was convicted by Sessions Judge, Ratlam (camp Alirajpur) for an offence under Section 302, I, p. Code and sentenced him to transportation for life.This appeal is preferred by the accused against his conviction.Damdia had a first wife named Nahali.Through Nahali, Damdia had two sons, accused Nanbu and P. W. Nankya.The case of the prosecution is that Joharu had illicit connection with the wife of accused Nanbu.The latter nursed a grievance against Joharu for this.The femoral artery in his thigh was cut and there was profuse bleeding.The deceased died within an hour.First Information Report was lodged by Damdia in which he mentioned Nanbu as the culprit.The dead body was sent for post mortem examination at the hospital at Alirajpur where it was examined by Dr. Joshi who gave his report indicating the nature of the wound and cause of death as described above.At the trial Damdia and Nankya took up the position that it was Nukati who had stated to them that Nanbu had killed Joharu.The only evidence was that of Nukati who supported the prosecution case about the incident.The accused pleaded 'alibi'.He stated that he had been to Thandla at the house of his wife's brother Kala, on Thursday.He stayed there that day.Later he went to Udegarh Hat and after returning therefrom again stayed at Kala's place.On Saturday Damdia and Balsingh called him.The incident is of Friday.The learned Sessions Judge relied upon the statement of Nukati and disbelieved the evidence of alibi.According to him Nukati had named the accused immediately after the incident as is clear from the First Information Report made by his own father Damdia.He therefore held that it was the accused who shot an arrow which pierced through the thigh of Joharu.He relied upon it and made a First Information Report against his own son.These circumstances and the natural reluctance which would be expected from Nankya and Damdia to involve the accused in a murder charge should in my opinion be sufficient to place reliance upon the statement of Nukati.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT Sen, J.It is admittedly within the Original jurisdiction of this Court.Ordinarily this case ought to have, therefore, been tried in a court of a Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta on a complaint being filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate.It is stated by the petitioner that after the evidence was gone into in this case by the learned Magistrate it came to his (Petitioner's) notice that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on admission.Heard on I.A.No.17990/2017 under section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant Shoyaib Ali @ Chotewala.A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that appellant stands convicted of the offence punishable under Sections 354 (a)(1)(1) and 294 of the Indian Penal Code.He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and fine in the sum of Rs.1,500/- with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been released on bail under Section 389 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure till 24.09.2017; therefore, it has been prayed that the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, and the short duration of sentence imposed upon the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant deserves to be released on bail.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 07.05.2018 and all other subsequent dates fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE sp/-

Cited provisions: Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code
by complainant Manishabai w/o Kalu Mankar at Police Station Chandan Nagar, District Indore (MP) about missing of her minor daughter from 17.03.2018 (05.00 PM).She wanted to marry with the applicant, which clearly indicates that she was the consenting party.Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.The investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.06.18 11:03:13 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code
At that time, at about 1 'O' Clock in M the afternoon various persons numbering more than 200 gathered of together along with Lathis/Dandas in their hand and violated the order passed under section 144 of Cr.P.C. by raising slogans and adopted rt recourse to violence.On the basis of aforesaid, the applicant has been ou implicated in the present case.C The applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.rt C.c.as per rules.ou C (G.S. AHLUWALIA) h V. JUDGE ig Arun* H Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.06.12 14:16:46 +05'30'C. No.21020/2018 arising out of the same crime number.sh Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for e ad grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Gohad, District Bhind in connection with Crime No. 81/2018 registered in Pr relation to the offences punishable u/S. 188, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.a As per prosecution, short facts of the case are that the District hy Magistrate, District Bhind vide order dated 02/04/2018 has imposed ad section 144 of Cr.P.C. in that area.On 03/04/2018, the SDM, Gohad along with his team were on duty.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.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.of A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

Cited provisions: Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code
allowed debajyoti CRM No.8792 of 2018 In re : Sri Dilip Yadav & Ors...... Petitioners.Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Tapodip Gupta, Ms. Somsuvra Mukherjee ..... For the Petitioners.Mr. Iqbal Kabir ..... For the State.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.Certified copies of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) ( Sanjib Banerjee, J. )

Cited provisions: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.239 of 2019 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13334 of 2019The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offences as alleged in the impugned FIR.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioner in Crime No. 239 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 505(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 65, 66(A), 67 Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Due to political enmity, the defacto complainant has lodged a false complaint as agaisnt the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.25.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no ksa 5/7http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13334 of 2019The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivilliputtur, Virudhunagar District.The Inspector of Police, Watrap Police Station, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 13334 of 2019 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ksa Order made in CRL.O.P (MD) No. 13334 of 2019 25.09.2019 7/7http://www.judis.nic.in

Cited provisions: Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code
In terms of the said Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner has agreed to pay to the second respondent/Ram Sewak, a sum of Rs. Rs.20,000/-.However, after due consideration, and further examination of the matter by this Court, the petitioner has agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.50,000/- instead, to the second respondent.Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is stated to have been received by Shri Ram Sewak earlier.This petition has been moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of FIR No.50/2013 dated 23rd February, 2013 registered under Section 304 A IPC at Police Station Chhawla and all emanating proceedings therefrom filed at the instance of the complainant/Ram Sewak, who is arrayed as respondent No. 2 in this petition, against Ramanand, who is the owner of the plot, where the infant daughter aged about 5 years, of the second respondent/Ram Sewak, is stated to have drowned in a water tank located on the said property.Issue notice to the respondents.Counsel for the State enters appearance and accepts notice.Charge-sheet is stated to have been filed and the case is pending trial.CRL.M.C. 2959/2014 Page 1 of 6Parties are stated to have compromised the matter and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21st April, 2014, which is also annexed to this petition.CRL.M.C. 2959/2014 Page 5 of 6FIR No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped."I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings and the same deserve to be quashed.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No.50/2013 under Sections 304A IPC registered at Police Station Chhawla, and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
This MCRC stands allowed.C.C. as per rules.(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE akanksham Digitally signed by AKANKSHA MAURYA Date: 10/01/2020 10:35:58Arguments heard on application filed u/s 439 of Cr.on 07.09.2019 for grant of bail on behalf of applicant Chotelal @ Chotu Bhartiya.Case Diary of Crime No. 184/2019 registered at Police Station Bichiya District Mandla for the offences punishable u/s 363, 366, 376 (2) (N) of I.P.C. & Section 5L/6, 5Q/6, 5(J) (ii)/6 POCSO has also been perused.The prosecutrix was in love relationship with the accused since one year back.During the period of 08.12.2018 to 16.07.2019 they made sexual relationship for several times and the prosecutrix became pregnant.Thereafter, when the accused denied to marry with her then on 18.07.2019 an FIR was lodged.It is directed that applicant Chotelal @ Chotu Bhartiya be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond worth Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) and a personal bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.It is directed that applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated u/s 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.

Cited provisions: Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code
The application is filed for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R. No.38 of 2018 registered with Vijapur Naka Police Station, Solapur at the instance of respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 323 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::It is alleged in the application that after marriage the differences arose between the applicant No.1 and respondent No.2- wife and she started residing separately.Thereafter the applicant No.1-husband approached the Superior Court at Washington, Country of Kind Seattle, Washington State, United States for dissolution of marriage and on 19.08.2016 decree for dissolution of marriage was passed.It is further alleged that the respondent No.2 after returning to her parental house in the month of May 2016 lodged FIR bearing Cr.No.643 dated 11.05.2016 in Gittikhadan Police Station, Nagpur for an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 354-D, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Pending investigation parties have settled their dispute amicably.Understanding arrived between the parties for quashing the N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 ::: p-503-apl-484-2018 subject FIR by consent.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::In paragraph No.3 she has stated that the subject FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations.She has also stated that her dispute with applicants is now been settled.In paragraph No.4 she has stated that she do not want to proceed further with the subject FIR and therefore she has given no objection to quash and set aside the subject FIR.The respondent No.2 is personally present in the Court.On behalf of the applicant Nos.1 and 2 through power of attorney- parents-applicant Nos.3 and 4 present before the Court.In that view of the matter and in the interests of justice, the subject FIR is required to be quashed.The application is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and is disposed of as such.::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 23:25:21 :::

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03.12.2014 in connection with Domjur P.S.Case No.915 of 2014 dated 24.08.2014 under Sections 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Sanjib Rana. ... Petitioner.Ayan Bhattacharjee ... for the Petitioner Mr.Amanul Islam ... for the State.Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the parties.The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Domjur P.S.Case No.915 of 2014 dated 24.08.2014 under Sections 498A/307/34of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court for anticipatory bail.The petitioner is the husband.At the very outset, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he is not admitting any of the allegations made against his client in the FIR and it is case of the petitioner that those are absolutely false, but as a matter of good gesture and having regards to the moral obligation of a good husband, the husband is now agreeable to pay monthly maintenance to the wife @ Rs.3,000/- per month.The learned advocate for the State, however, submits that there are materials to show the petitioner's involvement in the commission of offence, but when the husband voluntarily offered maintenance to his wife, he is not standing on the way.This order is subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of. 3(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT V.K. Agarwal, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred for quashing the order dated 3.12.1998 in Criminal Case No. 843/8 of J.M.F.C. Baloda Bazar and the order dated 21.7.1997 in Criminal Revision No. 413/88 by Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 182(2) of Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed.On account of maltreatment by petitioner No. 1 she was compelled to reside separately.The matter was reported by non- applicant to the police, thereafter a private complaint was filed by her, which after due enquiry has been registered by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baloda Bazar, Distt.Raipur and process under Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code was issued for the petitioners/accused.The present petition has thereafter been filed praying that the order dated 3.12.1988 and that of Revisional Court dated 21.7.1997 be quashed.The learned Counsel for the petitioner in this petition has urged that applicants' petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court was wrongly dismissed.It has been urged in this connection that Section 182(2) of Criminal Procedure Code provides that the offence punishable under Section 494 or Section 495 of Indian Penal Code may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the marriage or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence.It has been urged that since the non-applicant has alleged in his complaint that petitioner No. 1 solemnised his second marriage with petitioner No. 2 at Bhotia, Tehsil Sakti, Distt.Bilaspur; hence the alleged offence was committed at Village Bhotia, Tahsil Sakti, Distt.Bilaspur, i.e. within the jurisdiction of the Court at Sakti.

Cited provisions: Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code
17.12.2020 Court No.28 SL No.168 AP CRM 10467 of 2020 (Through Video Conference) In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Panchla P.S. Case No.190 of 2020 dated 24.08.2020 under Sections 341/323/325/ 354B/379/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is a dispute over sharing of common property.Earlier the petitioner had lodged complaint against the de facto complainant and his family members.In retaliation the petitioner have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.We have considered the materials on record.Allegation of assault including sexual abuse may be assessed at the appropriate stage of the proceedings in accordance with law.We note that there was prior enmity between the parties owing to property dispute.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees 2 Ten Thousand Only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioner while on bail shall not enter the jurisdiction of Panchla Police Station until further orders except for the purposes of investigation and/or for attending the court proceedings and shall provide the address where the petitioner shall presently reside to the Investigating Agency as well as the Court below and shall report to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station within whose jurisdiction the petitioner shall presently reside once in a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.The parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this court.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code
ORDER Sadasivam, J.Petitioner Raju alias Edly Rajoo has been convicted under Section 379 read with Section 75, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.According to him, the petitioner would have a right of appeal if he had been convicted and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment in the mofussil.There are separate Civil and Criminal Courts in the City of Madras with separate jurisdiction and they differ widely from the Civil and Criminal Courts in the mofussil.The reasons for the difference could be understood only by a person having knowledge of legal history.Such difference may be justified as one of reasonable classification based on geographical division.It should be noted that the petitioner would have been tried by a Second Class Magistrate in the mofussil, but he was tried in the City by a Presidency Magistrate who should at least be of the cadre of Sub-Divisional Magistrate.In fact, in this case the petitioner was tried by the Third Presidency Magistrate who was a District Magistrate before he came as the Third Presidency Magistrate.On the facts of the case, there can be little doubt about the guilt of the petitioner.P.W. 1, Krishnamoorthy is a Junior Engineer.he travelled in a bus with five-ten rupee notes and one one-rupee note in his left shirt pocket.He suspected the movements of the petitioner who constantly came near him.When he got down from the bus, he found his money missing.He saw the petitioner running and gave him a chase but was unable to catch him.At 7-30 p.m. on 7th April, 1961 itself, the petitioner was caught by the Police when he was creating disturbance in a drunken mood.A sum of Rs. 48 in currency notes was recovered from him.P.W. 1 was sent for, and he went to the Police Station and identified the petitioner as the person whom he chased that evening.The learned Third Presidency Magistrate has disbelieved the evidence of the defence witnesses, and no argument was advanced in respect of the same.Thus, the evidence of P.W. 1, and the recovery of the note, M.O. 1 clearly prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond any reasonable doubt.

Cited provisions: Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code