Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
Ms. Nandy, learned advocate for the State submits, on instructions received from the said officer-in-charge, that the complaint, sent by post, was received on 4th April, 2016 and on the following day Joynagar Police Station FIR No.426 under sections 447/323/354A/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter the said FIR) has been registered and that investigation is in progress.Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the fact of registration of the FIR was not communicated to the petitioner; had it been so communicated, the petitioner could have been spared the tribulations of approaching this Court.It appears from the FIR produced by Ms. Nandy that the said officer-in- charge did not obtain either the thumb impression or the signature of the complainant.Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the Officer-in-Charge, Joynagar Police Station (hereafter the said officer-in-charge) to register an FIR on the basis of her complaint dated 1st April, 2016, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.This is not only in derogation of the statutory rules but also amounts to disobedience of lawful orders of superiors viz. instruction issued by the Director General of Police to officers-in-charge of all police stations under his jurisdiction to ensure that the complainant is made aware of registration of an FIR immediately after the same is registered.I express hope and trust that the Director General of Police shall take appropriate steps in the matter.There shall be no order for costs.ice Office is directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police for necessary action.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously., (Dipankar Datta, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
1 42 20.11.2018 Sandip Court No.34 Allowed CRM 8565 of 2018 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 20.09.2018 in connection with Raiganj Police Station Case No. 338 of 2018 dated 18.06.2018 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re: Kalam Md. @ Kalam Hossain & Anr.Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmmed Begg ... For the Petitioners.Mr. Madhusudan Sur, APP, Mr. Dipankar Pramanik ... For the State.It appears that the second petitioner had an affair with the victim but upon the second petitioner apparently rejecting the victim, the victim committed suicide.The first petitioner is the brother of the second petitioner.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to the compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J,)

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code
JUDGMENT P.D. Mulye, J.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, against the order dated August 10, 1983, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 1075 of 1980, whereby the respondent has been discharged.In the alternative it is also prayed that if the impugned order is treated to be an acquittal, then the petitioner be granted leave under Section 378, Criminal Procedure Code, to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.The facts giving rise to this petition may be stated, in brief, thus : The petitioner, who is an Income-tax Officer, in the capacity of a public servant, after obtaining the necessary sanction, filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the respondent, who is an income-tax assessee, for an offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 277 of the Income-tax Act on the ground that for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, the respondent had submitted false returns by concealing certain income which was assessable to tax.Therefore, for income escaping assessment, action was taken against the respondent by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Thus, the respondent had submitted false returns with an intent to deceive and defraud the Income-tax Department and to secure a favourable order of assessment.The case was adjourned from time to time for recording evidence before charge but despite obtaining several opportunities, the petitioner did not adduce any evidence in support of the complaint.On August 10, 1983, also, the complainant was absent.The respondent submitted an application under Section 245(2), Criminal Procedure Code, along with a certified copy of the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Ex. D-1) to point out that the fact of concealment of income for the years complained of was held as disproved.The learned trial court, therefore, discharged the respondent on the ground that there is no evidence which if unrebutted would warrant a conviction of the accused.Hence, this petition.The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the learned trial court had given several opportunities to the petitioner to lead evidence before charge but no evidence was led.

Cited provisions: Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on the question of admission.Appeal being arguable is admitted for hearing.Let record of the trial court be called for.Heard on I.A. No.269/2020, first application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellants.This Criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 30.12.2019 passed in Case No.SC.DOCT/300001/2015 by Special Judge, MPDVPK, Sheopur (M.P.) whereby the appellants have been convicted as under with default stipulation:-Hearing of appeal shall take some time.Even otherwise, appellants have strong case on merits also.Hence, he prays for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.345/2020 (RIZWANA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) the prayer made by counsel for the appellants and has prayed for dismissal of the application.Considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the jail sentence of appellants have already been suspended for one month, application for suspension of sentence is allowed.It is directed jail sentence of appellants will remain under suspension on their furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for their appearance before Office of this Court on 23.10.2020 and thereafter on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) Judge vpn VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI 2020.01.14 17:58:47 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code
Record of the Court below in Special Case no. 79/2015 has been received.Heard on the point of admission.Perused the statement of the prosecutrix as well as witnesses.As per the prosecutrix she was below the age of 18 years.Applicant committed intercourse with the prosecutrix for more than one occasion for which she conceived.When the child grown up in the womb of the prosecutrix her abdomen got enlarged.When this fact was asked by other women she narrated the story.Considering the statement of prosecutrix and other witnesses, this appeal is having arguable point, therefore it is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.18802/2018, an application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of custodial sentence.T h e appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation.Counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was more than 18 years.This Court perused the statement of all witnesses.Different versions come in the statement of witnesses about the age of prosecution.Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 13/03/2019 10:50:24 2 CRA-8326-2018 Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application.The age of the prosecutrix is to be decided in this appeal.She has not narrated the incident to any one.When his abdomen got enlarged and when asked by other women about that then she narrated the whole story and the incident.Certified copy as per rules (VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE vivek Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR TRIPATHI Date: 13/03/2019 10:50:24

Cited provisions: Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Since both the applications are related to one crime, therefore both the applications are heard simultaneously and decided by common order.Applicant Vinod Kumar is in custody since 29.4.2014, whereas applicant Arun Kumar Pandey is in custody since 30.4.2015 in connection with Crime No.87/2015 registered at Police Station Laur, District Rewa for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 377, 376, 511 of IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant Vinod Kumar is a youth of age group of 24 years of age and applicant Arun Kumar Pandey is an old person of 58 years of age.There is no criminal past alleged against them.Initially the prosecutrix had stated that the applicants inserted penis in her mouth, however the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her mother Kavita (PW-1) have been examined before the trial Court and the prosecutrix did not allege that any of the applicant has done as alleged by her in the past.On the contrary, she has stated that the applicants inserted finger in her mouth.No offence under Section 366, 377 or 376 of IPC is made out against the applicants.Similarly, no offence under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act is made out against the applicants.The remaining offences are not so grave.The applicants are in custody without any sufficient reason.Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.It is directed that present applicants be released on bail on their furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) each with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)

Cited provisions: Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code
On 28-4-1985 at about 12 Noon, while she was waiting at the bus stop of Janki Devi College for going to her house at Sardar Patel Marg, Dhaula Kuan Delhi the accused Ram Bahadur, as per the prosecution evidence, approached her and told her that the maternal uncle of Laxmi is unwell.Laxmi agreed to accompany him to inquire about the health of her uncle.The accused then took her in a three wheeler Scooter to the Railway Station and made her sit in a train scheduled for going to Moradabad.On that very evening they reached Moradabad.On enquiry as to where is her maternal uncle, the accused is alleged to have threatened her to keep quite.It is the further case of the prosecution that on the morning of 30th April, 1985 Laxmi was taken to a bathroom at the Railway Station.The accused also followed her.In the bathroom, the accused asked Laxmi to undress herself.She felt nervous and raised alarm.She came running out of the bathroom.After covering some distance she met Vijay Raj, Mumtaz, Narain Singh and Jagdish, who were working as labourers at the Railway Station.Statement of Mumtaz was recorded and case registered.As the accused and Laxmi had come from Delhi and the offence of kidnapping had taken place there, the case was transferred to Delhi, for further investigation.On 3.5.1985, Laxmi was brought to Chankaya Puri Police Station where her statement Ex. PW-3/A was recorded.The case was then referred to Police station RajinderNagar.There also her statement Ex. PW-2/DA was recorded.JUDGMENT M.K. Chawla, J.These persons apprehended and secured the accused who was chasing Laxmi.Both of them were produced before the Moharrar at Police Station Moradabad.She was not sent for medical examination.He refused to join the same.On the basis of the facts disclosed in the report under Section 173 Cr. P.C., a prima facie case under Sections 363, 366, 354, and 506 I.P.C. was found to have been made out.The charges were accordingly framed.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.(3) The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses out of which the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother are important.The evidence of the remaining witnesses is of formal nature.(4) In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied his involvement of kidnapping, intimidating or outraging the modesty of Laxmi.He even denied his arrest at the Railway Station Moradabad.He, however, did not produce any evidence in defense.(5) The learned Addl.Sessions Judge on consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to bring any material to justify the conviction of the accused under Sections 366, 354 or 506 Indian Penal Code .He, however, held him guilty of the offence under Section 363 Indian Penal Code .and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 100.00 .In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
(INDORE):Shri Tarun Kushwah, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Virendra Khadav, learned counsel for the State.Heard on admission.Also heard on IA No.8542/18, which is an application for suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant Ghanshyam.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 02.11.2018 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Jhabua in Special Sessions Trial No.09/2017 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under sections 363/34, 366/34, 354-A of the IPC and u/s 3(2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/, RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- RI for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- and RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.500/- respectivelywith further default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn Court's attention towards the contradictions in the evidence of -2- Parvatibai which have been reflected in paras-21 & 22 of the impugned judgment.The contradictions are mainly in respect of the fact that Parvatibai states in para-9 that on the date of the incident she remained in the house through out the day and in para-10 she states that the accused left her behind Seelkhodari and were apprehended from village Para whereas as per prosecution case she was rescued from the clutches of accused from the motorcycle in which she was being taken.Heard learned counsel for the State as well.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, the application is allowed and the jail sentence passed against the appellant shall remain suspended and the appellant is directed to be released on bail subject to his depositing the fine amount (if already not deposited) and upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 26.03.2019 and on such further dates as may be fixed -3- in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.C.c as per rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2019.01.31 18:05:01 +05'30' hk/

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code
Arguments heard upon the appeal filed under Section 14-A of theS.C./S.T. (Prevention o f Atrocities) A c t on 18/10/2018 o n behalf of appellants viz. Golu Yadav, Halkebhai and Rajkumar.This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16/10/2019 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Damoh.Case diary of Crime No. 254/2019 registered under Sections 294, 323, 506, 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(V-A) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered at Police Station Tendukheda District Damoh also perused.Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the appeal stands disposed of.

Cited provisions: Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 20.01.2016 relating to Crime No.6/2016 registered at Police Station Dheerpura District Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 341, 294 and 436 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged against the accused Hardayal that he assaulted the deceased Thakurdas on his head with a sharp cutting weapon and the deceased Thakurdas died due to head injury.There is no allegation against the applicant either he assaulted the deceased Thakurdas or other victim.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co- accused persons for offence under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC, hence, no such offence is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.Similarly it is not mentioned against the applicant that he set fire on any house.No offence under Section 436 of IPC is made out against him.He is in custody without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the bail application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the 2 M.Cr.C. No. 4552/2016 case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.2 M.Cr.C. No. 4552/2016Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge Abhi

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code
(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE VK V/ -Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR VERMA Date: 2018.02.07 17:52:20 +05'30'This is first anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Crime No.325/2017 registered at Police Station Pawai, District Panna (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 341, 294 and 506-B of the IPC.There is old enmity due to litigation about the agricultural land between both the parties.The applicant has no criminal antecedents.It is directed that the applicant will surrender himself before Investigating Officer, within ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and then in the event of arrest the applicant, namely, Kishunlal Choudhary, shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand), with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code
Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the Objector.This application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Bharat and Hallebhai@ Dhanprasad who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.520/2016 for offences under sections 323, 324, 341, 307, 294 and 506-B of IPC registered at Police Station-Pathariya, District-Damoh.According to the case of the prosecution, the applicant no.1 is stated to have attacked the complainant with a spade causing an injury on the head.As regards the applicant no.2, he is stated to have attacked the complainant with a lathi, causing contusion over his eye and on the waist.As regards the applicant no.1-Bharat, learned counsel for the applicants has sought the withdrawal of the application.Under the circumstances, the application of the applicant no.1 stands dismissed as withdrawn.As regards the applicant no.2, the injury report depicts that the injuries caused by him are simple in nature and are contusions.The said offences according to learned counsel for the applicant would only constitute the offence under sections 323, 324 of IPC.He further states that he did not share any common intention along with the applicant no.1 of causing any kind of injury that would be grievous to life.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk.

Cited provisions: Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code
Petitioners are facing prosecution for offences u/s 120B read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC, and u/s 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, on a complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.The offences, alleged against the petitioners, though duly investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code did not, however, culminate in a report u/s 173 of the Code, as an investigation by the Police would normally do, because cognizance of an offence u/s 5 of the Imports and Exports Control Act could not be taken by any court except on a complaint by the competent authority by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. The complainant, respondent herein, is the competent authority for the purpose.In the course of investigation, large number of documents were seized by the Police and a number of persons were examined u/s 161 of the Code.The application was opposed on behalf of the complainant." The trial Court, however, negatived the claim of the accused to copies being supplied before the commencement of the trial, as in a trial on a police report.

Cited provisions: Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code