Anonymous
23 December 2010 at 08:42
X had initiated prosecution on Y u/s 420 ipc.. Police registered the case by court order and referred as civil in nature by giving various false informations. Protest petition filed and dismissed. Revision before High Court filed and dismissed based on the false statement of the police.
The statement of the police is that a civil case for Rs. 2 crores in City civil Court, initiated by X on Y got dismissed so this criminal case is also liable to be dismissed. The police had not given any documentary proof for the so called civil case.
The fact is there is no such a case and there can not be any such a case.
Now X really initiated civil case for Rs. 2 crores on Y in the High Court. The court refers to the findings in the Revision and says that “so called case will act as a resjudicata”.
X now is in a position to challenge the order of the High Court passed in the Criminal Revision, before the Supreme Court after 6 years. Whether it is possible, any body can come forward to take up the case? Ready to pay reasonable fee.
Anonymous
23 December 2010 at 08:19
Real case.
A is the accused resident of Haryana temporarily came down to Chennai.
B is the complainant resident of Tamil Nadu.
Cause of action arose in Kerala 420 IPC and FIR registered in Kerala.
Whether interstate anticipatory bail can be granted in Madras High Court?
Any any body help with citation?
Padma
22 December 2010 at 16:38
Dear Experts
I had asked a question previously but since it is very lengthy i am asking the same in few words / questions. Request your urgent help on this
I want to know how to deal with a private criminal case, for which i have obtained STAY and the Complainant has not vacated the STAY because it is based on false allegations and has arisen due to vengeance - The same can be proved by me. I am attending the Court once in every 2 months since the time i got the STAY and the case is being adjourned to the next date by the magistrate - when i present the STAY ORDER. This is happening for the last 2 years
NOW, i want to QUASH or CLOSE the criminal case - What is the procedure ?
I have heard through a friend that there is something called QUASH PETITION or DISCHARGE PETITION - but i am not able to get more information on this
PLEASE HELP ME - How to end this case?
WHAT STEPS SHOULD I FOLLOW ?
Thanks
PADMA
Member (Account Deleted)
22 December 2010 at 15:56
Whether the accused in private complaint based Preliminery register case u/s 436 of IPC has to get anticipatory bail while committal proceedings u/s 209 of Cr.P.C.? In this case summons were issued to accused. experts kindly clarify
Avinash
22 December 2010 at 14:58
When Adultery is committed it will be with the understanding between wife and her paramour.
later when husband came to know about the illegial relation of hers to protect herself and paramour she went and filed 498a and left the house of husband and started staying with her parents and later after 5months she went and filed domestic violence and Maintainence. The court of law gave a judgement after several evidence which proved of their relation and rejected maintainence to her. now i am filing 497 against the paramour.Can anybody help me with citations where she can also be pulled in the offence.
PRANAV S THAKKAR
22 December 2010 at 13:24
Dear sir, me have a client who was to get marry with a girl. he contacted to marriage beauro as suggested by own relative! But, the girl who was candidate to get marry found out a call girl, so he was cheated in this metter, even me client had given about 50000 as fees also!! which section is to be applicable ! what is the effective way to get maoney back!!!!
Anonymous
22 December 2010 at 10:51
fir has filed u/s 498a and another sections by wife, police did not investigated and never came to house of husband to know the truth without making proper investigation police has filed charge sheet stating that the accused have snatched rs. ...... dowry and harassed to the wife by all the family members of husband, however the fir has given nice story of harassment of wife i.e. she has been beaten abused in filthy language, she was not cooking well, she was using more washing powder, and she has been thrown out of house, she has given xxxxxx amount of dowry.
sir my question is what is the status of charge sheet as related to a full story of fir but charge sheet has prepared only with 6-7 line single para.
my another query is that what a roll of charge sheet with fir in the matter of family dispute.
what is vital roll of charge sheet does it mean that the charge sheet is a evidence of crime happened on which court has taken cognizance?
RENIN
22 December 2010 at 10:11
Kindly let me know about the sequence of procedures (and the time lag for each) to be followed to file a criminal appeal(appeal confirmed at HC) at SC of India.
sripartha
22 December 2010 at 01:12
whether sub divisional magistrate has power to recall/ review his own order, which is dismissed under Sec 203 of crpc. are there any citations which says, magistrate can review their own judgement
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Appln. for fraud in same execution court be possible
Dear Sir's
I have find one below citation which says as per my understanding that if fruad is played before court, same court can direct to filed compliant u/s209 & 210 IPC upon application of defendant an after conducting inquiry.
In my case she has took the session court order by concealment of her remarried and get order u/s125crpc, wherein stated that she has not remarried, she is entiled to get maintenance, till her remarry. but on that date she already got remarried.
in Execution proceeding pending before JMFC court aws stayed for her due to session court in rev.appln. after dismissed of my rev.appln. she file in JMFC court order of session judge and executed the arrears of maintenance in an application made onbehalf of her.
and also she has issued distress warrant of arrears amount which is beyond her remarried dates (i.e. almost 8months arrears beyond remaaired date). this facts is brought by me on record for cancellation of distres warrant and proceedings as fraud played on last date.
now i can filed another appln. before execution court for inquirying u/s209*210 IPC on fraud played with this court by concealing the true facts for issuing D/W of amount which is not entiled to her after remarried.while refering below case law.
kindly advise me.
-------------------------------------------
Equivalent citations: AIR 1970 Mys 267, 1970 CriLJ 1507, (1970) 1 MysLJ
Bench: C Honniah
K. Rathnam vs K.N. Somanna on 5/12/1969
ORDER
C. Honniah, J.
1. This is a revision petition filed by one Ratnam, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set
aside the order of the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore, dated 28-10-1965, by which he confirmed the order of
the Additional First Munsiff, Mysore.
2. The facts leading to the petition are briefly these: One Somanna, respondent herein, obtained a money
decree against Ratnam and two persons in O.S. No. 921 of 1963 on the file of the First Munsiff, Mysore.
Somanna filed execution case No. 677 of 1965 on the file of the Additional First Munsiff, Mysore. This was
in November 1905. Ratnam filed objections stating, inter alia, that the decretal amount had been adjusted on
18-7-1964 by an agreement between the parties and therefore the execution case was liable to be dismissed.
Somanna denied execution of the agreement and the decree being satisfied. The objection of Ratnam was
overruled by the learned Munsiff on the ground that the adjustment, even if true, as pleaded by him, was an
uncertified one. Thereafter, Ratnam filed an application Tinder Section 476 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure on 8-2-1966, requesting the Court to file a complaint under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code in
the Court of the Magistrate, as Somanna fraudulently or dishonestly or with intent to injure or annoy, had
made a claim in Court of justice, which he knew to be false. Therein, he stated that in spite of the fact that the
decree had been satisfied as per the agreement dated 18-7-1964, Somanna had made a false claim, While
dismissing the application of Ratnam, this is what the learned Munsiff observed:
"What is necessary for the present purpose is to see whether any offence referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) or
(c) had been committed before this Court entitling this Court to hold a preliminary enquiry. From the
materials placed before the Court, I have nothing to hold that such an offence had been committed in relation
to a proceeding before this Court. To take action under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code it is necessary
that an offence must be committed in the course of the judicial proceedings pending before the Court at that
time. Considering from any point of view, I am unable to hold that the alleged fraud, practised in execution
case 677/65, even if proved, would come within the scope of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. In these
circumstances, I do not feel it worthwhile going into the facts of this case any further."
The decision of the Munsiff was challenged by Ratnam in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Mysore. The
learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal by stating:'
"The learned Munsiff has felt from the materials placed before him that an offence referred to in Section 195
(1) (b) or (c) had not been committed in relation to a proceeding before him. He has rightly come to this
conclusion. He was right in not holding any preliminary enquiry."
3. Section 476 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the following terms:
"476 (1) -- When any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is, whether on application made to it in this behalf or
otherwise, of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into any
offence referred to in Section 195, Subsection (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c), which appears to have been
committed or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any,
as it thinks necessary, record a finding to that "effect and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the
presiding officer o the Court, and shall forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction,
K. Rathnam vs K.N. Somanna on 5 December, 1969