Total Pageviews

Sunday, April 11, 2010

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
S.202--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Summoning of accused--Quashing--Complaint--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab : 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Fraud--Second Complaint--Maintainability of--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which was raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Second Complaint--Fraud--Complaint that appellants who own and possess his own house came into contact with the respondent and ultimately won the confidence of the respondent--It was alleged that the respondent an illiterate, innocent person with a poor village background and he was induced to purchase some land for and on behalf of the appellants--Thus the respondent entered into an agreement to sell different plots of land of about 60 acres--Various sale deeds were executed and registered and respondent was given the impression that those deeds were registered in the names of appellants and the respondent jointly--Fraud was thus played on the respondent by the appellants and when the respondent realized the same he filed a complaint--Police failed to take any step, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate--Challenging the order of the Magistrate, a revision petition was filed in the High Court--Revision petition was also dismissed--Whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal--Held; No--Second complaint was on almost identical facts which were raised in the first complaint and which was dismissed on merits--So the second complaint was not maintainable--Second complaint not covered within exceptional circumstances--High Court fell into an error in not appreciating the legal position in its correct perspective while allowing the revision petition of the respondent--Appeal allowed. ; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.203--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 420, 120-B and 426--Second Complaint--Fraud--An order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant cannot file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal.; Poonam Chand Jain v. Fazru,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 481 (SC)
S.319--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.438--Additional accused--summoning of--Pre-arrest bail--Petitioner found innocent during investigation--In opinion of doctor cause of death was due to strangulation with ligature--Learned ADJ while summoning petitioner as additional accused noticed that petitioner and ‘P’ ran over neck of deceased with motorcycle--But aforesaid details regarding role attributed to each of accused including petitioner had not been given in detail by complainant in her statement--However, complainant categorically alleged in statement that near shop in narrow street all accused including petitioner were thrashing deceased and when she along her son and daughter reached place of incident all accused including petitioner after seeing them had taken deceased on motorcycle to house of her father-in-law where he was inflicted injuries with weapon--No ground for pre-arrest bail made out keeping in view the fact that deceased was found murdered--However, it would be just and expedient in facts and circumstances that learned trial Court grants interim bail to petitioner till application for regular bail is disposed of.; Om Pal v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 491
S.438--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319--Pre-arrest bail--Additional accused--summoning of--Petitioner found innocent during investigation--In opinion of doctor cause of death was due to strangulation with ligature--Learned ADJ while summoning petitioner as additional accused noticed that petitioner and ‘P’ ran over neck of deceased with motorcycle--But aforesaid details regarding role attributed to each of accused including petitioner had not been given in detail by complainant in her statement--However, complainant categorically alleged in statement that near shop in narrow street all accused including petitioner were thrashing deceased and when she along her son and daughter reached place of incident all accused including petitioner after seeing them had taken deceased on motorcycle to house of her father-in-law where he was inflicted injuries with weapon--No ground for pre-arrest bail made out keeping in view the fact that deceased was found murdered--However, it would be just and expedient in facts and circumstances that learned trial Court grants interim bail to petitioner till application for regular bail is disposed of.; Om Pal v. State of Haryana,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 491
S.439--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307, 341, 148 and 149--Arms Act, 1959, S.25 and 27--Bail--Murder--Attempt to murder--Unlawful assembly--Petitioner no.1 and 2 stopped tractor of complainant and attacked them with their gandasis--Their role similar to that of accused ‘K’ who attacked tractor with his dang granted bail--Beside, accused ‘G’ who was holding double barren gun and stated to have fired also granted bail as in supplementary inquiry and statement no specific role had been attributed to him--Petitioners who alleged to got money are in custody since December, 2008-Out of 29 witnesses citied by prosecution only three have been examined--Trial in the case likely to take time--Petitioner admitted to bail.; Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 510
S.482--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.202--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406, 498-A, 506, 120-B--Quashing--Complaint--Summoning of accused--Process issued without holding any inquiry or getting complaint investigated in any manner--Process issued on basis of statements of complaintant, person who attended marriage of complainant and father of complainant--Impugned order set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of mandatory requirement of Section 202--Case remanded to pass fresh summoning order.; Tarsem Lal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 528
S.482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.406—Quashing of Complaint--Dowry article/istridhan given by parents to in-laws of deceased daughter at time of marriage of his daughter became her property--Daughter survived by her son living with her in-laws--Son of deceased daughter will be entitled to inherit property of her mother--Moreover, in-laws of deceased daughter already facing trial under Section 304-B IPC--They cannot be now again put to trial for offence under Section 406--Summoning order quashed.; Sanjeev & Ors. v. Sher Singh,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 538