Anonymous
06 October 2011 at 14:24
Hi
Please let whether below document can be requested through crpc 91.
1) Document from hospital where husband and wife went for consuelling.
2) Mobile Call details of wife phone.
3) Details of ticket booked by wife parents..
I would requires these to prove my defence. can crpc 91 be used for third party service provider, ie doctor,phone company and travel agent.
Jainodin shaikh
06 October 2011 at 11:05
Hi everyone!
I am in need of fallowing judgements:
"2010 All M. R. Cri 742"
&
"2011 Cr.L.J. 652 SC"
please provide me this if you have.
Thaks in advance!
Kumar Gaurav
06 October 2011 at 02:10
A criminal lawyer(probably Designated Senior) having expertise in criminal trial required urgently for a criminal trial at evidence stage in Tis Hazari(Delhi).
Cont : 09540291159
Anonymous
06 October 2011 at 01:06
My wife had filed a false 498a case on me and my parents and we have secured bail now. Police SI called for mediation and we have reached a s ettlement amount of 20 lacs , so t hat she withdraw all the cases.
WHat are the procedures should I follow now ?sec 498a is non compoundable offence.. so how to quash it .Should it be done in high court or sessions court ?WHen should I give the settlement money .Mean while police are always troubling me in my office and my peace is lost although I have settled the dispute with my wife...Please help me.
harish
06 October 2011 at 00:06
DEAR SIR,
I NEED CITATION/REPOTER/BOOK WITH PAGE NO....... PLS IF ANY BODY PROVIDE....THANKINGU
High Court of Allahabad
Reserved
Criminal Revision No.6203 of 2006
Satendra Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and another
Hon. A.K. Roopanwal, J.
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27.9.06 passed by the
Family
Court, Gorakhpur in criminal case no.340/03, Smt. Kanchan Gupta Vs. Satendra
Kumar
Gupta, under Section 125, Cr.P.C. whereby the court allowed the application and
granted maintenance of Rs.3,500/- p.m. to O.P. No.2 and Rs.3,500/- p.m. for her
son
from the date of the petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
It appears from the record that an application under Section 13, Hindu Marriage
Act was
moved by the revisionist against O.P. No.2 before the Family Court, Gorakhpur
and this
was registered as case no.54/03. The wife Smt. Kanchan Gupta also filed an
application
under Section 125, Cr.P.C. against the revisionist Satendra Kumar Gupta for her
maintenance and for the maintenance of her son and this case was registered as
case
no.340/03.
The case of the revisionist was that O.P. No.2 had neglected him and is not
taking his
care and therefore, their marriage be desolved by a decree of divorce. The Case
of O.P.
No.2 was that the husband had neglected her and her son and therefore, the
divorce
suit filed by the husband was liable to be dismissed and she and her son are
entitled to
maintenance. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of
their
cases. The trial court framed as many as six issues for decision of the case.
After
perusal of the evidence the trial court dismissed the application for divorce
which is not
the subject matter of this revision as the only prayer has been made before this
court is
about the maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. filed by the wife. The
application for
maintenance was allowed in the manner stated above which gave rise to this
revision.
I have heard Mr. Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. K.K.
Mishra for
O.P. No.2 and perused the record.
Mr. Gupta argued that the trial court has wrongly assessed the income of the
revisionist
and has also wrongly fixed the quantum of maintenance, therefore, findings in
this
regard are liable to be quashed. In this regard he argued that the trial court
based his
findings on the basis of that record which was subsequently found to be not
reliable by
the court itself and therefore, the above findings should be quashed and matter
be
remanded back to the
court for afresh decision. The above argument was refuted
by the
other side.
A look at the impugned judgment would reveal that the findings regarding the
income
and the quantum of maintenance have been recorded by the trial court on the
basis of
the record of the income tax assessments for certain years relied upon by the
wife. The
husband challenged the truthfulness of these records by moving an application
under Section 340, Cr.P.C. even during the continuance of the proceedings but
the
trial court decided the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. without deciding
the
application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. However, after the decision of the
application
under Section 125, Cr.P.C. on 27.9.06 the same court decided the application
under
Section 340, Cr.P.C. vide order dated 26.2.07. In the last paragraph of this
order it was
observed by the court that the judgment in case no.340/03 has been obtained by
the
wife on the basis of forged evidence. The application under Section 340, Cr.P.C.
was
allowed by the court and criminal proceedings were instituted against the wife
and
others. Learned counsel for the revisionist says that in view of the decision on
the
application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. judgment passed in the proceedings under
Section 125, Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to stand and therefore, this should be
set aside.
Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 argued that the procedure adopted by the trial
court for
the decision of the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. is not a correct
procedure and
therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist
should not
be accepted.
In my opinion, it cannot be a valid consideration for deciding the controversy
between
the parties as to whether the procedure in initiating the proceedings under
Section 340,
Cr.P.C. adopted by the trial court was correct or wrong. The only consideration
for
testing the propriety of the judgment under Section 125, Cr.P.C. is as to
whether the
decision on the application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. can be a valid
consideration or
not for deciding the application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. and in that regard
it can
safely be said that once findings recorded on the application under Section 340,
Cr.P.C.
have not been set aside by any competent court of law, hence, these findings are
binding upon the parties and in view of these findings this can very well be
said that the
evidence on the basis of which the wife got judgment in the proceedings under
Section
125, Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be a good judgment as this judgment is based on
that
evidence which has been held to be forged by that very court which had decided
the
proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, I am in agreement with the argument advanced by the
learned
counsel for the revisionist that the judgment and order passed in the
proceedings under
Section 125, Cr.P.C. registered as case no.340/03 are liable to be quashed and
the
matter is liable to be remanded back for afresh decision.
Accordingly, revision is allowed. Judgment and order dated 27.9.06 is set aside
so far
as it relates to the proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. registered at case
no.340/03. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for afresh decision on
the
basis of the evidence on record. The parties may be allowed to lead fresh
evidence, if
they so like.
Dated:22.2.08
T. Sinha.
Anonymous
05 October 2011 at 23:58
I need to know whether at the pre-admission stage of filing a writ petition, for quashing of criminal proceedings in the lower court, the High Court can grant ad-interim relief to the Petitioner? Please inform me if there is any section of CRPC in this regard, or relevant judgement. Thanks.
harish
05 October 2011 at 23:36
Dear sir,
Need citation, 340 crpc, Perjury Citations
1. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002, Decided On: 03.12.2009
Appellants: Dalip SinghVs Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges:
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
ORDER
1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral Dart of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do no hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
If any body have ..pls. post...thanking u.
Anonymous
05 October 2011 at 17:54
What evidence does a Judge look for this allegation
Additional Dowry
1) Witness statement
2) Mere statement by complainant that her husband asked for additional dowry?
or does he looks for any materilistic evidence?
Anonymous
05 October 2011 at 17:38
R/Sir
My relative and five other were convicted in a crl case,after pronouncement when police was shifting them from court to jail,in court permises (not in court room) some electronic media reporters started videography, when i objected ,media persons misbehaved with me,even they filed a written complaint before President of Bar Association against our lawyer as he also raised objections for videography, i want to know in given situation videography by media is permissible or not.kindly advice me as i want to file case against media,is it violation of right to privacy.Thanx
Regards
Rajbir Rohtak
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Need citation/repoter/books with page no.340 crpc reg...........
Dear sir,
I need Citation/repoter/books with page no.340 crpc reg...........
THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Balshiram Rambhau Awate vs The State of Maharashtra Decided on 23 March, 1977
Equivalent citations: 1978 CriLJ 821
Bench: Deshmukh, Aggarwal
JUDGMENT
Deshmukh, J.
6. However, we are sorry to find that the learned trial Judge having taken a correct view of the situation did not proceed logically to issue notices to at least three of the prosecution witnesses for having committed perjury. Two courses were open to him. He could have taken action under Section 344 Cr.PC summarily and arranged to punish them there and then. It was also open to him to hold a summary inquiry Under Section 340 (1) of the Cr.PC and decide whether a complaint should be filed. In this regard the learned trial Judge has shown some inaction. We find that the Police Patil and the Kotwal being public servants could not be allowed to run away scot-free from the Court in spite of committing perjury. In the same manner victim Damo- dar who has received several injuries at the hands of his brother cannot play fast and loose with the Court. We are thus satisfied that it is necessary to take action against these three witnesses for having committed the offence of perjury. We would therefore hold a preliminary inquiry in that behalf as contemplated by Sub-section (1) of Section 340 Cr.PC
-----------------------------------
3. IN THE KERALA HIGH COURT
Vittappan vs State, Decided on 9 April, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987 CriLJ 1994
Bench: S Padmanabhan
S. Padmanabhan, J.
JUDGMENT
10. A court directing prosecution for perjury is not vindicating the grievance of any party. The action is mainly to safeguard the prestige and the dignity of the court and to maintain the confidence of the people in the efficiency of the judicial process. What the court is mainly interested in is seeing that administration of justice and dignity of the court is not flouted. The Sessions Judge did not specifically find on which aspect the appellant gave false evidence and whether that evidence was purposely made or whether it had any real impact on the decision of the case. In fact he did not even consider whether any perjury was committed. This is evident when he refused to express any opinion on that aspect and said that what he is concerned under Section 340 is only to see whether an enquiry is necessary or not. The only opinion formed by him for filing the complaint is that interest of justice demands an. enquiry as to whether the appellant committed the offence of giving false evidence in court. I am of opinion that the Sessions Judge has not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 340 of the Code and filed the complaint after passing the impugned order without the requisite satisfaction and without understanding the legal provision correctly. In fact the materials make it clear that this is not a fit case where it was expedient in the interest of justice to have an enquiry under Section 340 of the Code much less a prosecution. The impugned order and consequently the complaint must go.
------------------------------
Thanking u........