Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
Shri Pradip Katare, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri RBS Tomar, learned Government Advocate for the non- applicant/ State.In view of availability of case diary, we do not find fit to adjourn the matter because the petition is yet to be considered and decided on the basis of case diary.Hence, the counsel present are directed to make the submission in the matter on merits.On behalf of the applicant, this petition is preferred under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.254/2011, registered at police station Gole Ka Mandir, Gwalior for the offences of Sections 420, 120-B of IPC, Section 3(1)(2)(4) of Madhya Pradesh Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam as well as Sections 45S and 58B(5-A) of RBI Act.Before giving conclusion and finding by the Court, at this stage applicant's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition as not pressed.Considering the aforesaid prayer, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as well as not pressed, without extending any further liberty to revive the prayer under Section 438 of CrPC.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 26.8.2020 Arun/-

Cited provisions: Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code
(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE APRIL 26, 2018 mamta W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 4 of 4W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 4 of 4By the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayers:-Such other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 1 of 4However, this W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 3 of 4 provision is required to be used sparingly to meet the situation where due to the consequent running of the sentences, the imprisonment becomes unduly harsh.As noted above, in the present case, appellant has been convicted in two cases for 397 IPC and the total sentence for the two offences is 7 years + 10 years is 17 years rigorous imprisonment with the petitioner entitled to all the other benefits of remissions etc.W.P.(Crl.) No.2771/2017 Page 3 of 4Considering the nature of allegations and that the term of imprisonment required to be undergone is for the nature of offences committed, this Court finds no round to direct that the sentences awarded to the appellant in the two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 535/2009 under Sections 392/397 IPC and FIR No. 270/2010 under Sections 392/397/34 IPC should run concurrently.

Cited provisions: Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard Sri Shivaji Singh Sisodiya, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicant No.1 is married to the son of opp.party No.2 namely Raju and she has initiated proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. etc against opp.party No.2 and his son in which they are facing criminal prosecution,hence, the present complaint for malicious prosecution of the wife and her family members by opp.Notice on behalf of opp.Smt. Aneeta and others), under Section 380 I.P.C., Police Station C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VIth, Bareilly shall remain stayed against the applicants.Order Date :- 2.7.2013 NS

Cited provisions: Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR No.343 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent police as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners 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. 343 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 427 and 448 of IPC.Hence they 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.Perused the materials available on record.5.It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegation as against the petitioners, which has to be investigated.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of Four Weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.21.11.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order ksa ToThe Inspector of Police, Golden Rock Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J., ksa Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 17242 of 2018 21.11.2019

Cited provisions: Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code
Certified copy as per rules.Heard on I.A. No.5355 of 2018, an application for suspension of jail sentence of appellant--Gajraj, who has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) ()/109 of IPC and Sections 5(L)/6 read with Section 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo 4 years, 5 years and 15 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively, with default stipulations.As per the statement of prosecutrix, no allegation of rape has been made against the present appellant.The only allegation against the him regarding his presence at the time of occurrence.Considering the aforesaid so also on the ground of parity with Sitaram and Biharilal, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, (I.A. No.5355 of 2018) is allowed.The substantive jail sentence of the appellant- Gajraj is suspended subject to his depositing the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.40,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 19th November, 2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.

Cited provisions: Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code
The complainant's case was as follows: He was a student of Class VII of Samshi Secondary School in the district of Malda.The petitioner was the Head Master of the School.On August 12, 1961, during school hours one other student named Hiran lost one of his books while in the School.The complainant was found to have stolen that book.The petitioner thereupon treat him with a cane and also gave him fists and blow.ORDER R.N. Dutt, J.This revisional application is directed against an order of conviction and sentence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner was on this allegation tried tinder Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.He pleaded not guilty.The learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three days.The complainant, a boy of very tender age, was found to have stolen a book of another student in the school.There were some strokes with a cane and there were some fists and blows too; from the medical evidence it appears that there were 5 ecchymosis but all of them were of minor nature.One tooth was found loose and that could have been caused by some blow.The motive for the beating is very relevant for determining if it was in good faith.

Cited provisions: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code
It is also alleged that the applicant is not calling the meeting of company and have kept the agenda book and resolution book of the company in his possession with a view to gain control over the company.He without calling any meeting of the 2 board of Director of company prepared forge resignation letter of complainant Deepak and accepted his resignation on 18.12.2014 whereas he has never given the resignation.( 27 /06/2019) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by XII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.1091/2015 whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.(2).Brief facts of the case are that complainant Deepak Kumar Mandwani has given a written complaint to the police alleging that he and applicant Sunil are Director of the M/s Varadmurti Agro Tech Private Limited.The said company is owned 44 square feet diverted land situated at survey No. 193, 203, 204 of Village Tejpur Gadwadi, Tehsil and District Indore.The rate of the aforesaid land has been increased, therefore, the applicant Sunil Kumar illegally take over the aforesaid land.He also inducted his real brother applicant No.2 as director of company with intent to grab land of company.Thereafter, the applicant filed the aforesaid viz. appointment of applicant No.2 as director and removal of complainant Deepak Mandwani as director on the website of Registrar of Companies.On the basis of aforesaid complaint FIR bearing crime No.56/2015 was registered at police Station Juni Indore against the applicants for the offence under Section 420,467,468,471/34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.(3).Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
He has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of being husband of the deceased who died five years after her marriage due to poising.He further submits that the applicant and deceased are husband and wife and have two issues.They were living peacefully.There was no demand of dowry.The deceased was a short tempered lady on account of some dispute she had taken poison.According to him there are only general allegation against the applicant.There was no earlier complaint of any matrimonial dispute.It was the applicant who informed about the death of the deceased to the informant.He is a family man.Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Sanni, who is involved in Case Crime No.117 of 2014, under Sections 323, 498-A, 304-B I.P.C and section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Delhi Gate, District, Aligarh.Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that applicant is innocent.The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

Cited provisions: Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 229A 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 August 10, 2016 in connection with Mandermoni Coastal Police Station Case no.24 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 under Section 147/148/149/353/332/333 /186/323 /325 /341/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code;And In the matter of: Lakshmikanta Jana and others....petitioners....for the petitioners....for the State.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Mandermoni Coastal Police Station Case no.24 of 2016 dated 20.04.2016 under Section 147/148/149/353/332/333/186/323 /325/341/307/506 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail stands rejected.(Asim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on I.A. No.3162/2016, which is second application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant- Ashok S/o Govind Parihar.The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that first application was allowed and appellant was released temporarily on bail for 10 days on the ground of marriage of daughter of the appellant.He has not misused the liberty granted to him and surrendered before the trial court on the date fixed by this court.He further submits that he has already suffered a jail sentence for one year and seven months out of five years total sentence awarded to him and he also challenged the inference drawn by the trial court regarding age of the prosecutrix which was assessed as 12 years on the basis of her school record.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application on the ground that the prosecutrix belonged to the Scheduled Caste and she was only 12 years of age when the incident took place.Present appellant has tried to outrage her modesty which might have left an indelible mark on psychic of the prosecutrix.He further submits that even during the trial he remained under custody.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.02.2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.C.C. as per rules.

Cited provisions: Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code
Appellants, Yadu Nandan Mandal and Diwakar Mandal were tried alongwith Ganesh Mandal and Shyamdeo Jha for offences under Sections 364/34, 302/34,201/34 and 379/34 of Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') on the allegations of havingabducted and murdered Gauri Kant Jha and Aditya Nath Jha, disposed of their deadbodies and committed theft of their bicycles.The trial Court acquitted Shyamdeo Jhabut convicted the remaining persons under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC andsentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.However, all the accused wereacquitted of the charges under Sections 304/35, 201/34 and 379/34 IPC.All theconvicts preferred appeal against the judgment of the trial Court.During thependency of the appeal, accused, Ganesh Mandal died and, on that account, appealfiled by him abated.So far as the remaining two appellants are concerned, the HighCourt confirmed their conviction and sentence.Hence, this appeal by special leave.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has pressed thisappeal on the question of sentence and made a prayer that the sentence ofimprisonment awarded against the appellants be reduced to the period alreadyundergone as appellant No.1 - Yadu Nandan Mandal has remained in custody for aperiod of more than five years and appellant No.2 - Diwakar Mandal has remained incustody for a period of more than seven years.Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties andtaking into consideration the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that ends ofjustice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded against theappellants is reduced to the period already undergone.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and while upholding theconviction of the appellants, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against them isreduced to the period already undergone.The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from the liability of bailbonds.[B.N. AGRAWAL] ......................

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
M.C. 68/2015 Page 1 of 7 Delhi in Complaint Case No.25/2014 titled SEBI v. Timberworld Resorts & Plantations India Ltd. & Ors.M.C. 68/2015 Page 1 of 7The present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by the petitioner seeking striking off/expunction of para 8 of the order dated 29.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Crl.A criminal complaint was filed by the SEBI against Timberworld Resorts & Plantations India Ltd. and its directors before the Court for violation of Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act and Regulation Nos.5(1) read with 68(1), 68(2), 73 and 74 of the SEBI Rgulations, 1999 constituting offence punishable under Section 24(1) read with Section 27 of the SEBI Act. In the complaint, it was alleged that the accused company raised an amount of about Rs.22 crores from general public in violation of the provisions contained in Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act. Despite the Collective Investment Schemes (CIS) Regulations and public notice dated 18.12.1997, the accused pesons had failed to get the CIS registered with SEBI or to wind up the said schemes or repay the amount collected from the investors.Cognizance on the complaint was taken by the learned ACMM on 15.10.2001 and the accused persons were summoned under Section 204 Cr.P.C. On 08.12.2011, accused Rajesh Sud and A.V. Mahindra were declared proclaimed offenders.M.C. 68/2015 Page 2 of 7

Cited provisions: Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code
The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.3124 of 2013 has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of F.R. No.70 of 2013 (State vs. Ismeet Singh and others) arising out of case crime no.692-A of 2012, under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506, 465, 467 and 468 I.P.C. relating to P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki as well as impugned summoning order dated 03.06.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no.12, Barabanki.The petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3267 of 2016 has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.18 Barabanki in Criminal Case No.418 of 2013 (Sudhir Kumar vs. Ismeet Singh) arising out of case crime no.692 of 2012 under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 504, 506 IPC, P. S. Kotwali Nagar, District Barbanki.Since both the petitions arising out of the same incident, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order.On 15.03.2012 one Sri Sudhir Kumar through opposite party no.2 Sri Nand Kishore Srivastava, who is the agent of the said company, had applied for insurance of his Truck bearing its registration no.An incident took place by the Truck of Sri Sudhir Kumar and his truck was seized by the police and later on the said truck was released by the court concerned in favour of the vehicle owner on the release application moved by him.After the release of the vehicle, the owner of vehicle came to the petitioner's company and started pressurizing him to pay the compensation, which was refused by the petitioner.On denial of the compensation, two First Information Reports have been lodged - one by Sri Sudhir Kumar, the truck owner as Case Crime No. 692 of 2012 and another by Sri Nand Kishore as Case Crime no.692-A of 2012, who is an agent of the Company.Both the petitions are dismissed accordingly.

Cited provisions: Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code
S. P. Verma for the appellant.C. P. Lal for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byBOSE J.-Twenty-four persons, among them the two appellants,were tried for offences under sections 148, 307/149 and302/149, Indian Penal Code.Sixteen were acquitted and theremainmg eight were convicted.On appeal to the High Courtfive more were acquitted and the only ones whose convictionswere upheld were the two appellants, Nar Singh and RoshanSingh, and one Nanhu Singh.By a curious misreading of the evidence this Nanhu Singh wasmixed up with Bechan Singh.What the High Court reallymeant to do was to convict Bechan Singh and acquit NanhuSingh.Instead of that they acquitted Bechan Singh andconvicted Nanhu Singh.As soon as the learned High CourtJudges realised their mistake they communicated with theState Government and an order was thereupon passed by thatGovernment remitting the sentence mistakenly Passed on Nanhuand directing that he be released.This occasioned an application under article 134(1) (c) ofthe Constitution by Nanhu Singh and the two appellants NarSingh and Roshan Singh for a certificate.They are quite clear as to whatthey would have done if, in their judgment, the law had leftthem scope for the exercise of any discretion, for they say-" Ordinarily no certificate can be granted to them as thereis nothing of an exceptional nature in their cases."We hold therefore that the certificate was wrongly grantedto the appellants and will treat their case as one underarticle 136(1) for special leave.The High Court gives a clear finding thatthere were more than five persons and believes the eye-witnesses who identify the two appellants.A numberof persons joined in an attack at two in the morning onhelpless persons who were asleep in bed.At least one ofthe assailants was armed either with a gun or a pistol.

Cited provisions: Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code