| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
|
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 4 — Scope of — The provision of IPC apply also to any offence — committed by — (1)any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; —(2)any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be; —(3)any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India. (Para 5) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 4(1) — Offence committed by a citizen of India in any place without & beyond India — Offences committed at Dubai — Complainant & accused citizens of India — Held, provisions of the IPC will be applied. (Para 8) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 482— IPC — Ss 4, 323, 326, 342 & 506 r/w 34 — Quashing of FIR— Offence committed out of India — Consent terms filed before Consulate General of India, Dubai (U.A.E.) — all the disputes between the parties resolved — Personal dispute amongst close family members — Medical report — Considering nature of injuries — No offence u/s 326 made out — Entire dispute amicably settled — FIR quashed. (Para 5) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC —S 378(1)(3) —Appeal against acquittal — Indian Penal Code, 1860 —Section 279, 337 & 338 — Motor Vehicles Act 1988 — Sections 177 and 184 — Identification of the accused —not established — Identification parade — not conducted — description of vehicle or driver or name or any other particulars concerning driver — were not given in the complaint — None of the witnesses have narrated the name of the accused in their depositions — for want of identification as well as involvement of the accused — Acquittal upheld. (Para 6 & 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
Constitution of India — Article 227 — Application under —CrPC — S 319 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 —Section 302 r/w 34 — Application u/s 319 rejected by the trial Court — Circumstantial evidence — Case based on — Held, no case is made out at this stage to implead the persons named in the application—impugned order passed by the Court below does not warrant any interference — Oral evidence of the petitioner in his capacity as the first informant — Held, in the course of the examination of the other witnesses, if any evidence surfaces to prima facie indicate the involvement of these persons or any other person — the Public Prosecutor may file a fresh application under Section 319 — application rejected. (Para 31 & 32) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 364A — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Conduct of the accused — the accused had abducted victims for ransom— detained them in a room— The accused were armed with weapons— They had threatened victims and had kept guard over them till they were rescued by Police— Held, the accused caused a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the victims that they would be put to death or hurt— all the three ingredients of Section 364A proved — Conviction upheld. (Para 33) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 397 — Conviction under — Testimony of witness — does not indicate that the accused had taken away the money from his possession— No evidence to indicate that the accused had committed theft of his belongings— No recovery from possession of the accused— No evidence that the accused had threatened or detained the witnesses with an intention of committing theft— Conviction set aside— Evidence Act — S 3 & 27— Relevant fact & recovery. (Para 34) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
IPC — S 405 — Application of — No element of entrustment— Section 405 is not applicable. (Para 7) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 482 — IPC — Ss 406, 420 r/w 34 — Issuance of process — application for quashing — Allegation that the other accused siphoned of money to the petitioner — Allegations made in the complaint do not find place in the verification statement —Not the case of the complainant that she had verified from the Petitioner that the said amount was entrusted in his favour— No overt act attributed— she had no communication with the present Petitioner — Held, learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the discrepancy in the complaint and verification statement— material discrepancy in the complaint and the verification— Order of issuance of process quashed. (Para 5) |
PDF |
| INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 |
CrPC — S 482 — IPC — Ss 406, 420 r/w 34 — Issuance of process — application for quashing — learned Magistrate as he has ignored discrepancy between the complaint and verification — there is non application of mind —impugned order quashed. (Para 9) |
PDF |
|