Fawazzx/gndffg huggingface dataset:
The female is at the age of more than 18 years and if it is counted by the Aadhar Card then more than 16 years.In fact she candidly admits that on the morning of October 1st, she herself telephoned to the appellant to meet her in his car at a certain place, went up to that place and finding him waiting in the car got into that car of her own accord.No doubt, she says that she did not tell the appellant where to go and that it was the appellant himself who drove the car to Guindy and then to Mylapore and other places.Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.By means of writ petition, a challenge has been made to the First Information Report No. 0539 of 2019, registered on 03.06.2019 with Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh for the offence under Sections 363, 366 IPC & Section 7/8 POCSO Act.The perusal of the first information report does not show any allegation that petitioner enticed minor below 18 years.In absence of such allegation, the case would not fall under Section 363 IPC.Reference of Section 366 IPC has also been given.In view of above, the first information report deserves to be quashed.The said date of birth is not correctly recorded in the high school examination certificate.[W.P. No. 3519 (MB) of 2015] decided vide order dated 23.07.2015 has been given.

Cited provisions: Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code
allowed debajyoti CRM No.8517 of 2018 In re : Captain Mallick ..... Petitioner.Mr. Mukunda Lal Sarkar, Mr. Apalok Basu ..... For the Petitioner.Mr. Avishek Sinha ..... For the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Hanskhali Police Station Case No.332 of 2018 dated 18-09- 2018 under Sections 448/323/326/354B/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner submits that following a long-standing civil dispute between the petitioner and the complainant, the present complaint has been lodged on false grounds.The State produces the case diary and refers to the injury reports.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 petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) ( Sanjib Banerjee, J. )

Cited provisions: Section 448 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; Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code
And In the matter of:- Jahangir Sk.448/325/354/34 of the Indian Penal Code has come to this court for anticipatory bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on the question of admission.The appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.This is an application under Section 389 of CrPC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.2 Ratan Singh.The appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 326/149, 147 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 750/- with default imprisonment respectively.It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant No.2 that although his name is mentioned in the FIR but the injured Than Singh (P.W.1) has specifically stated that the appellant No.1 Havaldar Singh and appellant No.2 Ratan Singh had assaulted by means of lathis.The Trial Court by order dated 11.1.2017 had partially allowed the said application and the offence under Sections 323, 34, 506 Part II and 294 of IPC were permitted to be compounded and the appellant was acquitted for the said offences.Since, the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC was not compoundable, therefore, the said application was rejected.Thus, it is submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for a period of approximately 4 months.The application is opposed by the counsel for the State.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to deposit of fine, it is directed that the remaining jail sentence of the appellant No.2 Ratan Singh shall remain suspended and he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appellant shall appear before the office of this Court on 30.08.2017 and on subsequent dates given by the Office for appearance till the disposal of the present appeal.Certified copy as per rules.

Cited provisions: Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code
It is stated that the aforesaid FIR came to be lodged at the instance of the complainant alleging defalcation of approximately Rs. 64 Lacs in the matter of handling certain shares that were entrusted to the petitioner No. 1, who is the Managing Director of Unicon Securities Pvt. Ltd., which is stated to be a company dealing with the trading of shares on behalf of various clients.In other words, the company had been entrusted with shares by the complainant and his wife as their broker/agent.It is stated that the approximate value of the shares of the complainants at the time of the alleged offence was about Rs. 64 Lacs.The said amount is stated to have been paid in full.In addition, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner, which he has received during the lunch break today on the telephone, states that his client is also willing to pay a further sum of Rs. 3 Lacs towards costs in the matter.Counsel for the complainant submits that the matter has been amicably settled and that his client has received the aforesaid amount of Rs.64 Lacs in full and final settlement of his claims and also the claims of his wife in the matter.He further states that the complainant has injured his backbone, and is therefore, totally bedridden and has been unable to come to the Court today.This petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 67/2012 registered at Police Station Connaught Place under Sections 409/420/120B IPC, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, allegedly on the ground that the matter has been settled.After investigation, the chargesheet is stated to have been filed on 30.05.2012, and the matter is at a pre-charge stage before the trial court.A CRL.M.C. 3550/2014 Page 1 of 7 copy of the deed of settlement setting down the terms upon which the matter has been resolved between the parties has also been annexed to this petition.Proof of deposit of costs be filed within one week thereafter with the Registry with another copy to the Investigating Officer.CRL.M.C. 3550/2014 Page 6 of 7Consequently, the petition is allowed, and FIR No. 67/2012 registered at Police Station Connaught Place under Sections 409/420/120B IPC, and the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition, along with the accompanying application, stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code; Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code
It is directed that the applicant Sitaram, shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicant shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in the event of breach of condition of bail, the trial Court will be competent to take coercive action against the applicant.C.C. as per rules.Case diary perused.This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicant.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.142/2019, registered at Police Station Moondi, District Khandwa, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354-A of IPC and sections 7, 8 of POCSO Act.The allegation of prosecution is that on 17.5.2019 at about 8:00 pm, when prosecutrix, aged about 14 years was going from her old house to new house situated at Ward No.1 village Goundbedi, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Moondi, District Khandwa, applicant had intercepted her and taken her to the house of Ramya Nihal.It is alleged that the maternal Uncle of prosecutrix reached there and on seeing him, the applicant fled from the spot.The prosecutrix narrated the incident to her maternal Uncle Ram Gopal and mother Pramila.Thereafter the report of the incident was lodged.On that basis aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant.The trial will take a long time to conclude.It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application for bail.The High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.24636/2019 (Sitaram Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 Allegation of taking hold of the hands of prosecutrix is against the applicant.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and duration of his custody, I find this to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.Accordingly, this application is allowed.This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

Cited provisions: Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on I.A.No.2108/2014, an application for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304II of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and under Section 353 of IPC, sentenced to undergo 2 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Cited provisions: Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code
23.12.13 Item No. 11 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 11And In the matter of: Arindam Roy.The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Ashish Dey For the Petitioner Mr. Pabitra Talukdar For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ashoknagar Police Station Case No. 468 of 2013 dated 25.08.2013 under Sections 498(A)/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, has applied for anticipatory bail.Pursuant to the leave granted by us on 17.12.2013 the Petitioner has paid an ad hoc of `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) to the complainant.This amount has been paid without prejudice to the rights of the complainant to receive any further amount in any proceeding that she may file and the amount is not to be adjusted against any amount which may be awarded in any proceeding.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Indrajit Chatterjee, J)

Cited provisions: Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code
The second respondent is present in person.The petitioners as well as respondent No.2 are also identified by the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Uma Dutt.It is stated that aforesaid FIR came to be filed by the complainant / respondent No.2 as a result of certain matrimonial and domestic differences Crl.A son was also born to the parties.A copy of the said order is annexed to this petition.M.A. No.15054/2014 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.689/2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at police station Mangol Puri on 09.11.2013; on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, enters appearance and accepts notice.M.C. No.4389/2014 Page 6 of 7I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus since the parties have reconciled their differences on terms, and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the investigation.Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed, and FIR No.689/2013 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 34 IPC at police station Mangol Puri, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 dr Crl.

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.47983/2019 (Kalu @ Raees s/o Mazid Shah Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 27.11.2019 Mr. Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.

Cited provisions: Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram and Miss Seita Vaidyalingam forthe Petitioner.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.CHANDRACHUD, C.J. By this petition under Article 32 ofthe Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity ofsection 497 of the Penal Code which defines the offence of'adultery' and prescribes punishment for it.A few facts,interesting but unfortunate, leading to this petition arethese:The petitioner filed a petition for divorce against herhusband on the ground of desertion.The trial courtdismissed that petition, holding that the petitioner herselfhad deserted the husband and not the other way about.Thereafter, the husband filed a petition for divorce againstthe petitioner on two grounds: firstly, that she haddeserted him and secondly, that she was living in adulterywith a person called Dharma Ebenezer.The petitionerconceded in that petition that in view of the findingrecorded in the earlier proceeding that she had deserted herhusband, a decree for divorce may be passed against her onthe ground of desertion.That plea was opposed by the husband.He contended that hewas entitled to obtain a decree of divorce against thepetitioner not only on the ground of desertion but also onthe ground of adultery and that, there was no reason why heshould be denied an opportunity to show that the petitionerwas living in adultery.The husband's contention wasaccepted by the trial court but, in a revision applicationfiled by the petitioner, the High Court accepted her pleaand held that since, the finding recorded in the earlierpetition was binding on the parties, a decree for divorcehad to be passed in favour of the744husband on the ground of desertion and that, it wasunnecessary to inquire into the question of adultery.Weare informed at the Bar that, pursuant to the High Court'sview, a decree for divorce has already been passed in favourof the husband on the ground that the petitioner haddeserted him.Therewill be no order as to costs.

Cited provisions: Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code
All the proceeding are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relief of quashing of various first information reports registered for the offences punishable under Sections 272, 273,188, 328 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 26(2)(i),26(2)(iv), 30(2)(a), 3(1)(zz)(v), 27, 59(3) of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and various rules framed thereunder.2] The first proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 306/2015 registered with Tuljapur Police Station, District Osmanabad.Second proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 81/2016 registered with the same Police Station third proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 165/2015 registered with the same police station.Fourth proceeding is in respect of FIR No. 307 of 2015 registered with the same Police Station and the last proceeding is in respect of the FIR No. 165/2015 registered with the same Police Station.::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:44:46 :::5 30-Cri.Appln.various brands, sweet tobacco of various brands are seized from the shops of the applicant of the said proceeding.The applicant is not having the bills in respect of all the quantity of the different varieties showing that he has purchased it from the wholesaler or from the manufacturers.In the second proceedings the applicant was found in possession of the similar items under different names.6] In the third proceeding similar items were found.In the first proceeding not only the packets, labels and names of the Company were found but the description of Gutka were also found and the quantity was worth more than Rs. 1.68 lakh.In that case also packets of scented Masla, tobacco were found.Packets of blended Gutka were also found worth more than Rs. 35,000/- and packets of Goa Gutka worth more than Rs. 41,000/- were found.In the last proceeding packets of Goa Gutka, Bab Gutka, R.M.B Gutka, R.C. Gutka, Ayarn Gutka and others packets of scented tobacco, Pan Masala and betel nut were found.The value of all these articles is more than Rs. 31,00,000/-.7] The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decision given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1027 of 2015, ( Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao and others Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others) decided with many other proceedings on 04.03.2016 and ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:44:46 ::: 6 30-Cri.8 30-Cri.Appln.9 30-Cri.Appln.A.P.P for respondent/ State : Mr. M.M. Nerlikar ...::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2018 23:44:46 :::

Cited provisions: Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code
ap C.R.M. 2207 of 2017 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.03.2017 in connection with Nowda Police Station Case No. 235 of 2016 dated 18.08.2016 under Sections 341/326A/307 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) 2 (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)

Cited provisions: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Manti Kushwaha in Crime No.33/2017 registered by P.S. Devlond, Tahsil Beohari, District Shahdol under sections 294, 323, 506/34 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.As per the prosecution case, at about 06:00 a.m. on 03.03.2017 petitioner Manti Kushwaha was sweeping her house and pushing the trash towards the house of complainant Mamta.When the complainant protested, the petitioner started to hurl filthy abuses at her.At that time Kashinath Kushwaha, husband of petitioner Manti came out, armed with a stick and started to beat complainant Mamta.Mamta's husband Praveen interceded on behalf of his wife; whereon, Manti's son Ramlakhan armed with an axe arrived and assaulted Praveen.Thereafter, Jammu Bai, Kodu and Anchal etc. intervened in the matter.The First Information Report was lodged under Sections 323, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, however, three days later i.e. 06.03.2017 Praveen succumbed to his injuries; therefore, an offence under Section 302 of the IPC has registered.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the role that has been ascribed to petitioner Manti is limited to hurling filthy abuses at complainant Mamta.That apart, no act on the spot has been attributed to her.The incident arose out of trivial altercation.Therefore, it has been prayed that petitioner be released on bail.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the nature of incident and the role ascribed therein to the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of petitioner Manti Kushwaha, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE taj

Cited provisions: Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code
C c as per rules.Heard on the question of admission.This petition is preferred under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is admitted for final hearing.Learned P.L takes notice of this admission and undertakes to produce the case diary at the time of final hearing.Heard on IA No. 8688/10, an application for grant of ad interim anticipatory bail to the applicant as he is under apprehension of his arrest in connection of Crime No. 14/10, registered at Police Station AKJ, Narsinghpur, for the offence under Sections 294, 452, 506-B, 34 of IPC.It is further directed that at the event of the arrest to the applicant in the above mentioned offence on depositing his licenced rifle with the police and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000- (Rs. ten thousand) alongwith one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority by the applicant, he shall be released on bail.Such release shall be subject to terms and conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

Cited provisions: Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the proceeding pursuant to the charge sheet dated 14.7.2019 whereupon cognizance has been taken against the applicants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Auraiya in Criminal Special No.168 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.323 of 2019, under Sections 354-Ka,323,504 IPC and Section 3(1)(da),(dha) & (ba) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Bidhuna, District Auraiya.The test to be applied by the court is to whether uncontroverted allegation as made prima facie establishes the offence and the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal proceedings to be continue.In S. W. Palanattkar & others Vs.

Cited provisions: Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code