Anonymous
18 October 2010 at 23:59
Husband is paying maintenance according to the order passed in crpc.125. Wife has filed revision.
So far, there is no attachment of property by wife.
Property is self-earned by husband. There is no contribution from wife.
In this situation if husband sells his house, Is it possible for wife to file a case u/s IPC.206 and IPC.207?
Ayub S. Pathan
18 October 2010 at 21:46
Complainant has concealed his culpability. Filed filed false complaint against other accused and mislead the investigating agency. Which is the provision to make complainant as an accused. If any Citation pl. en-light me
Ajit Kolhatkar
18 October 2010 at 20:28
I am living in Pune city and in a residential complex of 10 buildings and approximately 100 row houses. Recently our society chairman told (verbally) our security persons to blow whistles during nights from 12AM to 5AM with an interval of an hour. So our watchmen walks around the buildings while blowing whistles and hitting sticks on the ground. Though my flat is on 3rd floor and at corner side, I am suffering from maximum noise and because of that resulting into sleepless nights. I had given complaints in writing to our society office but our chairman is not in a mood to listen and other members are not willing to complain officially. This is not sanctioned in Society member meeting.
Can you tell me if there is any rule in this type of case ? Where can I get information on this ? Where should I give my complaint ? Is there any way-out ?
Anup Kamalakar Hadgaonkar
18 October 2010 at 19:23
two diferent cheques, drawn from the same A/c (same persen)to me. both the cheques dishonered with remarked thatinsufficient ballance in the a/c of drawer.
so my Q. is whether i have to send two seperet notices of diferent cheques or one notice is sufficient
and for complaint?
Anonymous
18 October 2010 at 18:13
Dear Friends
Our firm is based in Agra, we had a business dealing with a firm based in Delhi. All the transactions were done in Agra i.e. supply of goods, receipt of payment by cheque. But, as our Bank is CBS, the cheque was deposited in party’s bank in New Delhi. The cheque was dishonoured and we filed a suite under section 138 & 420. In the last hearing at the time of arguments, the judge told us that the suite falls under Delhi’s jurisdiction, as the offence was committed in Delhi and he mentioned about a ruling of Supreme Court.
Will appreciate, if some learned friend guides me, whether the suite is maintainable at Agra or not. Secondly, suppose it gets rejected at Agra, are we eligible to file a fresh suit in Delhi, as the suite is 4 years old, will we get the benefit of limitation or not,.( We mean that will the period of litigation in Agra court will be counted or not.
Will be grateful, if some noble soul provides us any ruling of any High Court or Supreme Court,in this regard.
Thanking you & with Best Regards .
SUKRIT
deepak jain
18 October 2010 at 16:56
Sir,
I want to know about latest rules u/s 200 & 202.I heared that there is some amendment in crpc u/s 200 & 202.
Please Provide me Defination/Rule Us 200 & 202
Thanking You
DEEPAK JAIN
Harshpal
18 October 2010 at 14:23
The learned CJM dismissed the criminal complaint and passed the following order.
Perusal of complaint does not show any element of malafide intention on part of the accused.
Accordingly there is no ground for taking cognizance & registration of complaint.
Thus complaint is dismissed at the cognizance stage itself.
File be cosigned
Can the learned CJM pass this order with out following procedure under section 200
N.J. MISHRA
18 October 2010 at 14:20
MEMBER PLEASE ADVISE ME
I FILED A PRIVATE COMPLAINT, CHARGED THE ACCUSED U/S. 403,406 OF IPC. THE MATTER IS PENDING FOR HEARING AND VERIFICATION. NEEDS TO AMEND CERTAIN GROUNDS OF THE FACTS, CAN I CARRY OUT THE AMENDMENTS BY MAKING AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE, OPPOSITE PARTY IS NOT SERVED.
Anonymous
18 October 2010 at 13:51
one of the partner mr x of our firm was retired in 2000 taking his share and signed the retirement deed in front of our advocate and also signed the RECEIPT OF FULL AND FINAL settlement and nothing is due at the time of retirement mr y old partner and his two son as new partner joined the firm
after three yrs in 2003 he deposited a cheque of rs 40lakh in our firm current account and demanding rupees 40lakh under 138 from our firm
the fact he had stolen the cheque when he was in our firm bearing the single signature of our firm with no rubber stamp on it.we got the certificate from our bank that this cheque was from series of the year 1993.He used the forged rubber stamp of our firm and try to claim rs 40 lakh and filed a case under 138
before he filed the 138 we had file criminal case of forgery on him he was arrested and the cheque was sent to forensic expert now two case was running in two court
1)which we filed forgery case which has now been over since Mr x is expired
2)138 case which was filled by Mr x
present situation :
Mr x expired and in 138 matter Mr y also expired whose signature was on the forge cheque which is lost by the police and the case is started on secondary evidence between the son of Mr x and the two sons of mr y who are the partner of the firm.since the cheque belongs to our firm and we are the partner we are facing the trail.
1)the cheque was a stolen cheque bearing sigle sign of Mr y. whereas cheque requires any two partner signature to encash from the bank from the time our firm started which mr x was aware of it
2)we have the certificate from our bank that this is from series of 1993.
3)the cheque has forged rubber stamp on it with single signature
4)we had given full share at the time of retirement and have receipt of full and final settlement
Is there any judgement helpfull in our case kindly help us if you have any tips regarding our case
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
criminal revision
criminal revision against exemption of presence of accused under sec- 499 IPC, desparately need authority over the topic stated , as argument on revision in a few days, please need authority, for both favor and against