Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
ORDER S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.This is an appeal by State.The four respondents were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 304, I.P.C. by the trial Court.It is alleged that Ramesh Chander, the second respondent herein, who is armed with the firearm shot dead the deceased persons.He set up a plea of self-defence.The trial Court, however, convicted all the appellants and sentenced three of them to undergo imprisonment for life but Ramesh Chandra, however, was sentenced to death.The High Court which heard the appeals filed by the accused as well as the confirmation of the case acquitted three of the respondents.So far as the accused Ramesh Chandra is concerned the High Court took the view that he has exceeded the right of self-defence and accordingly convicted him under Section 304, Part 1, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.In this appeal the State has questioned the judgment of the High Court on the ground that all the four respondents ought to have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The prosecution case is as follows:The respondent Suresh Chandra is the Pradhan of village Maagdapur and has a licensed pistol.The second respondent Ramesh Chandra is his brother and had a licensed rifle.Shyam Sunder, father of the third respondent also had a licensed gun.There were dispute in respect of an auction for the fishery rights between the first respondent and the deceased.Three days before the incident the deceased and his two sons and P.W. I went to respondent No. 2 with their money a bid amount.There was exchange of harsh words between them.On 3-10-76 the deceased and his three sons including P.W. 1 went to the market for purchasing some foodgrains.About 4.00 P.W. when PWs.1 and 2 were also there all the four appellants came there armed with weapons.The first respondent abused the deceased and he grappled with him.At this juncture, on the exhortation of the other respondents Ramesh Chandra shot the three deceased persons.The High Court acquitted the three of the respondents mainly on the ground that they did not play any role and that Section 34 cannot be applied in their case.Now coming to the case of Ramesh Chandra, the High Court has accepted the right of private defence set up by him.In any event he was convicted under Section 304, Part I and was awarded life sentence.This is an appeal against an acquittal and we see no good ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed for the relief of direction, directing the second respondent to release the buses of the petitioner bearing Registering Nos.NL01B1408 and NL01B1409, within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police without considering the actual occurrence happened earlier, based on the false complaint given by the Thasildhar, without any enquiry registered the case in Crime No. 433 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 269, 271, 465, 468, 471, 484 and 420 IPC r/w Section 3 of the Epidemic Act and Section 51 of Disaster Management Act. As of now, during the time of investigation, the buses bearing Registration Nos.NL01B1408 and NL01B1409 are recovered by the respondent police and kept in the Police Station, without any safety and security.Hence, it is necessary to direct the respondent police to produce the buses and hand over the same to the petitioner, since the petitioner is the owner of the said buses.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that during the time of occurrence, thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 buses now alleged to be recovered, ran with false records and was carrying the passengers without any e-pass.Only because of the said reason, a case has been registered and the buses, which are the material objects, were recovered and kept in the Police Station.The respondent police is directed to produce the petition mentioned buses before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate's Court ie., Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.http://www.judis.nic.in 4 R.PONGIAPPAN, J.Ns On production of such vehicles, the petitioner is at liberty to file a petition for interim custody as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the Presiding Officer of the said Court has to pass necessary order only on merits.6.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code
The Investigating Officer, ASI Arvind Kumar, identifies the petitioners as well as the second respondent / complainant.They are also identified by their respective counsel.M.A. No.12182/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is disposed off.This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of FIR No.44/2014 dated 16.01.2014 registered under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Jahangir Puri, on the ground that the matter has been compromise between the parties.A copy of the Compromise Deed executed between the parties on 30.05.2014 has been annexed to this petition.It is further stated that the original deed has been duly filed in the court of Sh.Narender Singh, SDMJ, Ganaur, Haryana in Civil Suit No.152/2011, which has also been duly settled and withdrawn in terms of the aforesaid compromise.Issue notice.Mr. P.K. Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and N.M.C. No.3533/2014 Page 1 of 6Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2 / complainant, accept notice.FIR Crl.M.C. No.3533/2014 Page 5 of 6 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."M.C. No.3533/2014 Page 5 of 6I am of the opinion that since the matter has arisen out of a dispute between uncles and brothers of the same family, all of whom are primarily agriculturists; and since the complainant is also not interested in supporting the case of the prosecution in view of the aforesaid compromise between the parties; the likelihood of the prosecution succeeding is remote and therefore it will be in the fitness of things if this matter, which is still under investigation, is given a quietus.Consequently, the petition is allowed and FIR No.44/2014 dated 16.01.2014 registered under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station Jahangir Puri, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J AUGUST 11, 2014 dr Crl.

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
He has drawn the attention of this court to the list of cases alleged to be registered against the present appellant.There are as many as 6 cases mentioned in the said list.The aforesaid table is reproduced as under :With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is heard finally.The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 17-12-2018, whereby the statutory appeal under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Adhiniyam') filed by the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order of externment dated 12-10-2018, passed by the District Magistrate by which the appellant was externed from the municipal limits of District Sidhi for the period of eight months.The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25-02-2019 as well as the impugned order of externment dated 12-10-2018 passed by the respondent no.3 and the order dated 17-12-2018, passed by the appellate authority, the respondent no.2 are hereby quashed .

Cited provisions: Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code
06.01.2015 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the applicants.Ms. Pratibha Mishra, Public Prosecutor for the State.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicants are in custody in connection with Crime No.556/2014 registered at P.S. Kundipura, District Chhindwara for the offence punishable under sections 341, 147, 148, 149, 307, 354, 506-B, 195-A of IPC.As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicants that one case is pending against co-accused Pappu Patel.It is further alleged that Pappu Patel along with Umesh and these applicants had restrained the complainant and gave blows by rod and lathi to him, thereby he sustained many injuries.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.He further submits that as per prosecution, main accused is Pappu Patel and Umesh.There is specific allegation against them that they assaulted the complainant on his foot and wrist.He further submits that there is general allegation against these applicants that they were accompanied with Pappu Patel and also assaulted the complainant by using stick and knife.Charge sheet has been filed.The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail.(G.S.Solanki) Judge ravi

Cited provisions: Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is the fourth repeat application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant whereas his earlier two bail applications (Mcrc No.6840/2016 & Mcrc No.12493.2016) have been dismissed on merits vide orders dated 08.07.2016 & 26.10.2016 respectively.The applicant is in custody since 09.03.2016 relating to Crime No.129/2016 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 332, 333, 186, 294, 506, 34, 394, 397, 201 of IPC and under Section 11, 13 of the MPDVPKAfter considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that there is no change in the circumstances or no new ground could be shown by the applicant so that the view taken on 08.07.2016 and 26.10.2016 may be changed.It was also mentioned in the order dated 26.10.2016 that appreciation of evidence cannot be done at this stage.(N.K. Gupta) Judge pd

Cited provisions: Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code
(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)W.P.9956(W) of 2014 pg (Asha Mondal @ Ashalata Mondal & Ors.vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay Mr. Suman Sankar Chattopadhyay...for the petitioners Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee....for the State A report has been filed by the Circle Inspector, Amta Circle, Howrah Rural District through Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate for the State.It appears therefrom that investigation of Amta Police Station Case No. 46 of 2014 dated February 05, 2014 under Sections 448/427/342/323/325/379/506/376-D/120B of the Indian Penal Code has been completed and police report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the 'Code') has been filed before the learned magistrate vide Amta Police Station Charge Sheet No. 91 of 2014 dated April 26, 2014 under Sections 448/427/342/323/ 325/379/506/376-D/120B against eight F.I.R. named accused persons and two persons whose names transpired in course of recording the statements of the victims and the complainant under Section 164 of the Code.The report shall be retained with the records.Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate for the petitioners submits that some other persons, whose names transpired in course of recording of the statements of the victims and the complainant under Section 164 of 2 the Code, have not been charge sheeted.He prays for an opportunity to look into the report.Put up the writ petition under the same heading on Tuesday next (13.05.2014).Learned advocate on record for the petitioners shall be at liberty to look into the report.

Cited provisions: Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
And In the matter of: Apurba Saha ....petitioner.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the allegation of compelling the victim to cohabit with him on threat of uploading pictures are patently absurd.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah subject to the condition that during bail he shall appear before 2 the learned trial court regularly till disposal of the trial and he hall not intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence in any manner whatsoever.In the event the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions as enshrined hereinbefore, it is open to the trial court to cancel the bail without any further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
By this present Miscellaneous Criminal Case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant is challenging order dated 6.1.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khategaon, District-Dewas.Earlier the applicant has filed an application bearing M.Cr.C.No.32396/2019 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The said application has been withdrawn vide order dated 26.8.2019 with a liberty to renew the prayer after two months of the statement of the prosecutrix.As per prosecution story, on 15.7.2019 complainant lodged a report against the petitioner that, at about 12 o' clock when she was sitting on her shop, at that time applicant teasing to the complainant and from his ship and when the prosecutrix asked him that, why he is teasing her then the applicant came with ballam (sharp object) to cause injury in the shop of the complainant and the complainant entered in her house and the applicant also entered in the house of the complainant and caused injury to her.Upon crying, her husband and his brother came there and save her.The applicant caused injury to the husband of the complainant by sharp object.On the basis of the said report, offence under Sections 452, 354(A), 509, 323, :2: M.Cr.C.No..2637-2020 325 and 506 of the IPC has been registered against the applicant at police station Harangaon, District-Dewas.:2:Against the said order, the applicant has filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the learned Judge while rejecting the application has failed to consider the provisions of Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. whereas as the said Section, if in any case triable by Magistrate, the trial of the person accused of any no-viable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate and in the present case the first date for evidence was 30.10.2019, but none of the prosecution witnesses present before the trial Court.As per the said provisions, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.C.No..2637-2020Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail; hence he prays for rejection of the application.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.However, till 3.1.2020 the trial could not have been completed and none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined.

Cited provisions: Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code
C.R.M. 9259 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 09/10/2018 in connection with Chanchal P.S. Case No.581 of 2018 dated 11/09/2018 under Sections 341/323/325/307/34 of the Indian gd Penal Code.And In the matter of: Gour Ch.Das @ Gour Das @ Gora Das & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. A. Sarkar ...for the petitioners.Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ...for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Chanchal P.S. Case No.581 of 2018 dated 11/09/2018 under Sections 341/323/325/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claim that following a dispute over the felling of a tree with a neighbour, there was a fight and injuries were suffered on both sides.The petitioners say that an exaggerated complaint has been lodged against them.The State produces the case diary and refers to one of the injuries.The concerned victim suffered two deep-cut scalp injuries.The State says that wooden sticks were used to mercilessly beat up the complainant and his associates.Considering the nature of the incident and the extent of the injury, the immediate detention of the petitioners may not be called for, particularly since they have been identified.The petitioners must, however, cooperate with the investigation.In addition, the petitioners will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
1 .2018 m No.33 No.34 owed C CRM No. 5835 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.08.2018 in connection with Kolaghat Police Station Case No. 216 dated 14.05.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Surajit Maity & anr.... Petitioners Mr. Suman De, Advocate .. for the petitioners Mr. Aniket Mitra, Advocate ..for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Kolaghat Police Station Case No. Case No. 216 dated 14.05.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 341/325/307/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.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 compliance with all requisite formalities.(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2

Cited provisions: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code
He grew paddy on the land and reaped it.ORDER Sen, J.This rule has been obtained by the two accused who have been convicted of having committed theft.The first accused Yakub Sheikh has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.Half of the fine has been directed to be paid to Kalu Santal as compensation.The case for the prosecution is that Kalu Santal was in possession of certain land as the adiar of one Charan Das Chatterjee.

Cited provisions: Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code
rt Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of ou incident, age of prosecutirx was 16 years and she was a consenting party and he has been falsely implicated.Alternative submission was C that prosecutrix sustained injury in her private part when she was h attending the call of nature.ig The submission is opposed by the Government Advocate and he H submitted that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was only 08 year old girl and she was sexual assaulted by the appellant.As a result of the sexual assaulted she had sustained injury in a private parts.This fact is duly proved by Dr.Rashmi Kurariya (PW-7) as well as mother of the prosecutrix Nanhi Bai who lodged the FIR.After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.Accordingly, I.A.No.1401/2017 stands rejected and closed.Hence, I.A.No.16059/2017, an application for suspension of fine amount stands disposed of.sh C.C. as per rules.

Cited provisions: Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code