Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
The petitioner is shown as Accused No.6 in C.C.No.54 of 2013 on thefile of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar.The de-factocomplainant in this case is the second respondent herein.2.Though the second respondent has been served and his name is also figuring in the cause list, he has not not chosen to appear before this Courteither in person or through counsel.It is seen that in respect of one of the propertiesbelonging to the second respondent, the first accused viz., Selvaraj executedPower of Attorney, dated 16.08.2005, in favour of the fourth accused, who inturn executed another Power of Attorney, dated 15.03.2007, in favour of thepetitioner herein.Thesecond respondent had moved the learned Judicial Magistrate No.The first respondent conducted investigation and laid the final reportunder Sections 120-B, 419, 465, 468, 471 r/w. 109 IPC.The petitioner isshown as 6th Accused in the Final Report.To quash the proceedings, insofar as she is concerned, thepetitioner/A6 has filed the present Criminal Original Petition.4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the firstrespondent.But, in this case, the direction issued bythe learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Sattur, was not only followed butlater, investigation was conducted and final report was filed and the samewas also taken on file in C.C.No.54 of 2013 by the learned JudicialMagistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.Therefore, much water has flown under thebridge and it is late, in the day, on the part of the petitioner to raise thepoint of territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, who issued directionunder Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. But, then, the other contention of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner merits acceptance.The learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner did not have any directlink with the first accused.The petitioner was not the Power of Attorney ofthe first accused.It was the fourth accused, who hadexecuted fresh Power of Attorney, dated 15.03.2007, in favour of thepetitioner.The only material to establish a joint conspiracy underSection 120-B IPC is the statement of one Palani.8.This Court went through the said 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.6 -Palani.It stretches the credulity of this Court.The said statement hasbeen prepared deliberately to rope in all the accused.The de-factocomplainant merely points out that A1 to A4 have joined together and createdfalse documents.The only allegation that is made against the petitioner bythe de-facto complainant is that the petitioner based on the false documentexecuted in her favour by A4, had executed a further sale deed.This Courtis of the view that there is no legally acceptable material to fasten anypenal liability on her.Therefore, the impugned prosecution in C.C.No.54 of2013 is quashed in respect of the petitioner alone.This Criminal OriginalPetition is allowed accordingly.2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code
... for the petitioner.... for the State.The present petition has been filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the order dated 25th February, 2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar in connection with Bidhannagar North Police Station Case No. 107 dated 15th May, 2011 under Sections 323/341/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G. R. Case No. 394 of 2011 be set aside.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order the court below has committed grave error in not acceeding to the prayer made by the petitioner for further investigation.This Court on 14th March, 2013 had passed the following order :-Shri Sanyal is directed to requisition the Case Diary on the next date of hearing.Shri Sanyal is further directed to instruct the Investigating Officer to remain present in this Court on the next date of hearing and serve a notice upon Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 regarding pendency of this revision petition and the next date of hearing."Today Sri Shiladitya Sanyal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instruction from Sk.Zakir Hossain, ASI, Bidhannagar (North) Police Station, submits that due to inadvertence seizure memo dated 2nd June, 2011, Annexure 'P-3' at page 23 of the paper book was not made as part of charge sheet.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that to rectify the said mistake, a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be filed and seizure memo dated 2nd June, 2011, Annexure 'P-3' shall be made part thereof.The question regarding validity of the seizure memo is kept open.Parties may advance arguments before the court below regarding the contents of alleged seizure memo at appropriate stage including its genuineness and mode.

Cited provisions: Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code
sdas allowed C.R.M. No. 2314 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.02.2019 in connection with Barrackpore Police Station Case No. 8 of 2019 dated 21.01.2019 under Sections 147/148/149/323/354B/379/506/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.And In Re: Dinesh Kumar Sahani ......... petitioner Mr. Debasis Kar ...for the petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli, learned A.P.P., Mr. Arani Bhattacharyya .... for the State It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is a dispute between family members and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further 2 condition that he shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a period of fortnight from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P., Mr. Partha Pratim Das CRM No. 4151/17 Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P., Mr. Pradipta Ganguly CRM No. 4157/17 Mr. Atif Ahmed Siddique CRM No. 4158/17 Since the petitioner is common in all the aforesaid bail applications, the same are taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by a common order.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first three cases he was named in the FIR and not named in the last one.He further submits that he has been falsely implicated.On the other hand, from the side of the State prayer for bail is vehemently opposed and it is submitted this is a communal violation and petitioner's direct involvement and participation in the commission of the offence has been clearly transpired from the statement of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.According to those eyewitnesses, he played active role in the commission of the offence, may be that in one case, he has not been named in the FIR.Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code
CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 3 of 3(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No. 64/2018, under Sections 354/354D/506/509 of IPC registered at police station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi is sought on the basis of Affidavit of 1st February, 2019 of respondent No. 2 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice".In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility as the misunderstanding, which led to registration of the FIR, now stands cleared between the parties.Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to costs of `25,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 2 of 3 within three days from today.Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within two days thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No.64/2018, under Sections 354/354D/506/509 of IPC registered at police station Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed.CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 2 of 3This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MARCH 18, 2019 p'ma CRL.M.C. 1496/2019 Page 3 of 3

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code
Item No. 11And In the matter of: Fulbashi Sarder Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Prasanta Bishal For the Petitioner Mr. P.K. Dutta Mr. Subrata Roy For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Minakhan Police Station Case No. 274 dated 26.10.2012 under sections 498A/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased.We have perused the case diary.The husband of the deceased is on bail.Since the charge sheet has been submitted, the Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within fifteen days from today.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Arindam Sinha, J) 2

Cited provisions: Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code
17-11-14 32/skp (Allowed) C.R.M. No. 9903 of 2014 In the matter of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13th August, 2014 in connection with Deganga P.S. Case No. 391 of 2014 dated 07.06.2014 under Sections 447/325/354B/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In re : Kasem Mondal & Ors.... Petitioners.Md. Younush Mondal ... for the petitioners.Ms. Ratna Ghosh ... for the State.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on false allegation due to strained relationship between the parties.We have heard the learned Counsel for the State.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.( Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. ) ( R. K. Bag, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code
I.A. No.22076/2020, an application for urgent hearing is allowed.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Case diary perused.The applicant has filed this repeat application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first one was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10/11/2020 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Indarganj, District Gwalior, in connection with Crime No.328/2020 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 411 and 413 of the IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, Mobile phones and HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.He is ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed by this Court.He is permanent resident of Gwalior and there is no likelihood of his absconsion, if released on bail.With the aforesaid submissions, prayer for grant of bail is made.Learned counsel for the State is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station for information and necessary action.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, by the office of this Court.Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVAST AVA 2020.12.02 11:29:33 +05'30'

Cited provisions: Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code
On the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the applicants/accused has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants/accused.The learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicants/accused has prayed for rejection of the bail application.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE

Cited provisions: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code
The material facts, which are relevant for the disposal of this Criminal Original Petition, are as follows:-The Petitioners are the Secondary Grade Teachers, working in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiruvennainallur, Villupuram District.The 2nd Petitioner worked in the said School from 28.7.2004 to 13.9.2005 as a Science Teacher and he has been transferred and posted at Kumanantholu in Andipatti Taluk, Theni District.This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records in PRC.No.1/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Ulundurpet and quash the same.The 1st Petitioner is working in the same School.On 14.7.2005 at about 12.15 p.m., one Rani, Anganvadi Teacher reported to the Teachers that some one had taken a sum of Rs.1200/- from her bag, which was kept in the Balvadi Class and suspected that some of the students of the IX Standard A of the School, who visited the Anganvadi, might have stolen the money.Accordingly, the Petitioners called for those students and their bags were searched.A few minutes thereafter, a student by name Udaya alias Saranya, the deceased herein gave Rs.100/- to the Petitioners, claiming that the said amount was found in the bag of one Kavitha, a co-student.Thereafter, Udaya @ Saranya and six other students were taken to the male staff room and they were enquired by the lady teachers.At that time, Udaya @ Saranya took Rs.600/- from her Churidhar pocket and handed over the same to the Petitioners.Another amount of Rs.500/- was also handed over by Udaya @ Saranya to one Jayanthi, PET Teacher.After, the said incident, the deceased Udaya @ Saranya was in the School during lunch period and attended the post session classes and left the School at 4.20 pm.Thereafter, on an enquiry, the Petitioners had come to know that Udaya @ Saranya had immolated herself and was taken to the Government Hospital at Villupuram, where she had given a dying declaration to the Judicial Magistrate, stating that since the Petitioners scolded her that she had stolen the money and the 2nd Petitioner remarked to her to go and die and as she was so ashamed, she had immolated herself.On the complaint given by the father of the deceased girl, FIR was registered in Cr.Later the deceased died on 16.7.2005 and the offence was altered into one under Section 306 of IPC and the Petitioners have been arrayed as the accused.According to him, the conduct of the Petitioners was very natural, as any prudent man would only try to find out as to who has stolen the money and the real fact is that the deceased girl had stolen the money and the same was exposed before the other students, which had led her to commit suicide.

Cited provisions: Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in FIR in Crime No.271 of 2018 on the file of the respondent for offences under Sections 379, 430 of IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.271 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 379, 430 of IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents.The correctness or otherwise of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020 said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial.However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the remand itself rejected for want of documents to prove the illegal transportation of river sand, and the petitioners had valid licence to transport river sand.Considering the submissions, the petitioners are directed to produce all the relevant documents before the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.On receipt of the same, the respondent is directed to consider those documents and file final report after completing the investigation within a period of two weeks thereafter.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.With the above directions, the criminal original petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.04.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order lok Note: Issue order copy on 06.03.2020The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurinjipadi Police Station, Cuddalore DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No.5051 of 2020 and Crl.MP.No.2875 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6

Cited provisions: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code
(c) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer and shall remain present for the purpose of investigation in the police station at Indapur on Monday and Friday between 10 am to 1.00 p.m for next two weeks.BHARATI DANGRE, JTilak(a) In the event of their arrest, the Applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two sureties of the like amount.(b) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as toTilak 6/6 13 ABAST-2396-20.doc dissuade them from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with evidence.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code
C.R.M. No. 12777 of 2014 MNS.In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on September 9, 2014 in connection with Dubrajpur Police Station Case No. 102 of 2014 dated June 4, 2014 under Sections 147/148/149/332/333/338/186/353/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act and Section 9(b)(ii) of the Indian Explosive Act and Sections 3/ 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 9 of the M.P.O. Act And In the matter of: Mir Lal Babu @ Mir Anawar Sahadat and others ...petitioners.Mr. Sabir Ahmed ...for the petitioners.Mr. N. Ahmed ...for the State.Heard the learned advocate of both the parties.The application for bail is, thus, rejected at this stage.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code
And In the matter of : Asis Dey.The State of West Bengal Opposite party.Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh, Ms. Sonasubhra Ganguly For the petitioner.Mr. Angshuman Chakraborty For the State.The petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Suri Police Station Case No.162 of 2013 dated 13.05.2013 under Sections 147,148,149,341,332,333,186,353,224,225,307,506 of the Indian Penal Code, has come to this Court for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have considered the case diary.In these circumstances, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the further condition that the petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer at least twice a week until further order.2 The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J.) ( Kanchan Chakraborty, J.)

Cited provisions: 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 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.37956/2019 (Balram s/o Madanlal Korku Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 30.09.2019 Ms. Bharti Shastri, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.

Cited provisions: Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code