//
archives

FIR

This tag is associated with 15 posts

There is no evidence on record to establish that infuriated by his removal from service and non-payment of dues, the appellant masterminded the plot to abduct the children or played any active role in abducting them. If a telephone call was received making ransom demand and making grievance about alleged ill-treatment of the appellant, the police should have traced the calls and identified the caller. The police have failed to do so. Criminal courts recognize only legally admissible evidence and not farfetched conjectures and surmises. The High Court’s observation that there was a pre-conceived plan to abduct the children would not be applicable to the appellant because there is nothing on record to establish that the appellant met the co-accused and planned a strategy to abduct the children and demand ransom. His case stands on a different footing from that of the other accused. The case of the other accused will have to be dealt with on its own merit. The High Court was carried away by the heinous nature of the crime and, in that, it lost sight of the basic principle underlying criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. If a criminal court allows its mind to be swayed by the gravity of the offence and proceeds to hand out punishment on that basis, in the absence of any credible evidence, it would be doing great violence to the basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence. We hope and trust that this is just an aberration. 12. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant – Md. Faizan Ahmad @ Kalu is ordered to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. 13. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1636 of 2012] MD. FAIZAN AHMAD @ KALU … Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … Respondent JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, by special leave, … Continue reading

Quash of an offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.The pending civil suit will take care of all those issues. The allegation that forged and fabricated documents are used by the appellant can also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondent 2’s attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant having failed, he has filed the present complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in another case filed by respondent 2 against him alleging offence under Section 406 of the IPC. Possession of the shop in question has also been handed over by the appellant to respondent 2. In such a situation, in our opinion, continuation of the pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. = the impugned order dated 29/9/2011 passed by the Uttarakhand High Court is set aside. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 723/2005 (charge-sheet No. 32/2005), and the order of cognizance dated 22/3/2005 passed thereon by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar against the appellant, respondents 3 and 4 and against accused Rajpal for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of the IPC are quashed and set aside. This order will however have no effect on the pending civil suit between the parties. Needless to say that the court, seized of the said suit, shall decide it independently and in accordance with law.

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2069 OF 2012 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7720 OF 2011)   PARAMJEET BATRA … APPELLANT Versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. … RESPONDENTS O R D E R Leave granted. 2. The appellant, respondents 3, 4 an one … Continue reading

Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code.the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3. 9. Hence, impugned judgment and order dated 14/9/2011 passed by the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1935 of 2009 is quashed and set aside insofar as it refuses to quash the FIR in question against appellants 1, 2 and 3. FIR No.66 of 2009 lodged at Mahila Thana, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan is quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 viz. Smt. Chandralekha, Vandana and Vinita respectively. We make it clear that so far as Rajeev Bhandari s/o. Meghraj Bhandari is concerned, the proceedings shall go on in accordance with law. We have not quashed FIR No.66 of 2009 insofar as it relates to Rajeev Bhandari. Needless to say that the court seized of the complaint shall deal with Rajeev Bhandari’s case independently, without being influenced by anything said by us on the merits of the case and in accordance with law.

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2070 OF 2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9092 of 2011]   CHANDRALEKHA & ORS. … APPELLANTS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. … RESPONDENTS   O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, by special leave, … Continue reading

The High Court has, however, directed that the proceedings against the accused –respondents so far as the offence under Section 304A of the IPC and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 may continue. It is further submitted that notwithstanding the filing of the charge sheet dated 31.08.2012 there is ample power in the court to order investigation in so far as the offence under Section 304 IPC is concerned. It is also contended that having regard to the pre-eminent social status of the Bapuji Ashram and the evident role of the Ashram authorities in scuttling the fair investigation of a palpable crime, further investigation by the independent agency like the CBI should be ordered by this court.- the powers under the aforesaid provisions of the Code will always be available for exercise if subsequent facts would justify resort to either of the provisions. We also deem it appropriate to add that though several decisions of this court had been placed before us to demonstrate that it is open to this Court to direct further investigation by the CBI even after the State police may have filed the charge sheet upon completion of its investigation, we do not consider it necessary to go into any of the said decisions in view of our conclusions as recorded above. The mere reiteration of the availability of the judicial power to direct further investigations even after filing of the charge sheet as held in Narmada Bai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.[3] would suffice for the present. 21. Consequently, and in the light of the foregoing discussions we

|REPORTABLE | IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1805 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3198 of 2011) Shantibhai J. Vaghela and Anr. … Appellant (s) Versus State of Gujarat and Ors. … Respondent(s) With CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1806-1807 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4453-4454 … Continue reading

bail- Therefore, as of now, prima facie, the participation of these accused in the occurrence of 30.4.2011 cannot be seriously doubted, unless of course, during the course of evidence, the video clipping is shown to be doctored.The MLA is alleged to have received gun shot injuries as well. The allegations constitute an open challenge to civil society. Persons involved in the alleged incident can not be accepted to remain disciplined if enlarged on bail. It is likely that they would threaten witnesses, which would severely prejudice the outcome of the trial – Insofar as the other cases filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh are concerned, a video clipping clearly demonstrates the presence of accused nos. 2 to 5, 7 and 14 at the place of occurrence. As such, bail granted to accused nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 14 (since accused no. 4 whose presence was shown in the video clipping, has already died) by the High Court, is hereby set aside. Taking into consideration the fact that the complainant, in the First Information Report, has involved a large number of members in one family, wherein the accused nos. 1, 2 and 6 are real brothers, and the other accused are their children, it would be just and appropriate to affirm the order passed by the High Court qua all the accused other than the main accused and the accused depicted in the video clipping. Accordingly, the order of the High Court extending the benefit of bail to accused nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 14 is hereby set aside. The bail granted to the rest of the accused, by the High Court, is affirmed.

“NON-REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1595-1596  OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 4409-4410 of 2012) Younus Bin Omer Yafai @ Younus Bhai & Ors.                                 …. Appellants Versus State of A.P. … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,445 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com