Legal Fighter
31 August 2009 at 13:08
Hello Sir,
A person went to High Court for quashing of FIR in Crl. writ but high court refused to do stating that prima-facie offense is made out. Now chargesheet is filed against him. He again goes to high court for quashing of chargesheet u/s 482 CrPC. Is it permissible? Can anybody provide me such Supreme Court judgment which puts bar on such quashing petition. Please let me know at the earliest.
Thanks & Regards,
Manish
ad. creaminall
31 August 2009 at 12:17
on behalf of Accused no.- 2 >>> complaint filed u/s. 420,467,465, 468, 471,34 IPC acgainst accused.Order passed u/s. 156(3)on 19/12/97 but FIR registered on 12/1/99. reason for delay was given that due to investigation in other I&R matter of other court. the complainant who has filed te complainant is shown as witness in FIR and the complainant is different person. main Accused i.e. Accused no. - 1 who really has commited the offence showed as suspect only. niether he has arrested nor shown as wanted. charged framed twice first in the year 2000 and second in the year 2008.
experts plz. tell what remedy is available for accused no. 2 ??????????
plz. provide any citation/case law is available in favour of Accused no. - 2.
Thanks in avance.
vinod bansal
30 August 2009 at 22:48
Respected Members
Kindly help me in above stated matter,I filed a crl complaint uss 323/506 IPC & magistrate at the stage of framing of charge ,discharged the accused from all allegations,now i want to challenge this order of discharge/aquittal before sessions court ,i have to file appeal or revision against this order,I am highly confused regarding differences (Definations)of Appeal /Revision & Interlocutary orders,i have go through so many citations but all proved futile. plz explain me & enlighten me at this law point,So Thanx in antipitation n Regards.
Vinod Bansal Advocate
vinod bansal
30 August 2009 at 22:32
R/Members
My A/bail application under above sections is pending for 1-9-9 before sessions court ,embezzled amount is Rs. 18000/-my client/petitioner is also a old patient of epilepsy,kindly provide me any citation for bail.Thanx
vinod bansal
30 August 2009 at 22:28
R/Members
Will anyone plz provide me legal Dictionary (for downloading)Thanx in anticipation
SUBHASH SHARMA
30 August 2009 at 21:22
ONE OF MY CLIENT HAS PRINTING PRESS AT SHAHDARA HAS RECEIVED A SUMMON OF CRIMINAL/FAUJDARI SECTION 61 FROM AMITABH RAWAT D.J.S. METROPOLITAN MEGISTRATE ( MUNICIPAL)-01, KARKARDOOMA, DLEHI.
IT HAS BEEN MENTINOED THAT, YOUR PRESENCE IN COURT IS MENDATORY IN THE OFFENCE OF 416(41). YOU HAVE TO PRESENT AT THE ABOVE COURT EITHER YOURSELF OR WITH YOUR ADVOCATE AS IT IS REQUIRED.
KINDLY SUGGEST WHAT TO DO
SUBHASH SHARMA
ADVOCATE
M-9891338895
Rajneesh Madhok
30 August 2009 at 20:08
False case registered and the person kept in illegal confinement REGISTERED CASE UNDER SECTION 107/151.THIS TIME ARRESTED WITH NO OFFENCE.
PREVIOUSLY THE ACCUSED HAD BEEN PENALIZED UNDER PULIC REPRESENTATIVE ACT IN 2007.
Sir,
Cops of Punjab Police detained a person and kept him in confinement. The matter was reported to quite a number of authorities The case was that a person Viz A had helped the old ladies to cast their vote in the last assembly elections held in the year of 2007 by providing conveyance up to the polling booth. In that case the case had been registered against him and him was penalized for Rs. 1,000/-. The case is over.
Now we come to the point. In this parliamentary elections. The said person A became the victim of Punjab Police. The police keep on harassing him, keep on putting him in illegal confinement. The procedure of harassment did not come to end.
The victim (offender in the name of Punjab Police) reported the matter vide E-mails, Speed post to different authorities from Punjab police officials, President of India, Vice President of India, Chief Secretary and all the concerned officials of Ministry of Home Affairs. But in vain.
One day in early hours A was picked up from his house with police force and again kept in confinement. The police replied to the query filed under RTI act that the reasons of taking actions are as under.
PUNJAB STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONCHANDIGARHComplaint No: 8084/9/2009 Present : Complainant Kulwinder Ram with Shri Rajneesh Madhok Report dated 21.8.2009 from SSP Kapurthala has been received through A.D.G.P/IVC-Cum-Human Rights, wherein the allegations of the complainant have been refuted and found false. It is reported that during the Lok Sabha Elections in 2009 there were instructions from the Election Commission that preventive action be taken against all the Bad Chracter persons and those against whom cases were registered during the last elections. Since case FIR No. 29 dated 13.2.2007 was registered against complainant Kulwinder Ram at PS Sadar, Phagwara, during the last elections, he was arrested and produced before the SDM while taking action under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. A copy of this order along with a copy of the said report be sent to the complainant for filing the rejoinder by the next date, failing which the complaint would be finally disposed of in accordance with law. Adjourned to 13.11.2009. Date: 24.8.2009 Sd/-“SONI” Justice Baldev Singh Member Now the points to be considered:1. Sec. 107/151 is regarding MINOR DISPUTE of two parties. In this case the convict who had been put behind bars twice and has to get bail has not made any offence. In the last assembly elections he had helped the old ladies of the village to caste their vote by providing transportation in his car. In this offence he had been convicted and had been fined for Rs 1,000 in the 1997. Whether he became law offender and there is a great problem if he scot free during elections and there will be the law and order maintenance problem. 2. Sec 144 is applicable on Law and order problems. Why the person put behind bars and placed in lock up and still the police department says that it is according to the instructions by the Election commission. REPLY OF PUNJAB POLICE SUBMITTED TO THE COMPLAINANT From Senior Supdtt. Of Police, 24/8/2009 Kapurthala, To Registrar, Human Rights Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh !No. : 1770-P Dated 21-8-09 Sub Regarding: Shri Rajneesh Madhok, Nehru Park, resident of Gali No. 2, Railway
pkm
30 August 2009 at 14:59
In K.K. Ahuja Vs V.K. Vora & Anr. Hon’ble Supreme Court had given decision on July 06, 2009 under Section 138 of N.I. act. The judgment is reproducing below. Hon’ble court has defined vicarious liability under section 141 sub sections (1) & (2).In the para 6 of the judgment, as per section 141 (2) signatory of the cheque is liable though he may not be Director of the company. He may be an employee of the company performing his duties. The decision is quite elaborative. In my opinion the hon’ble court has failed to clarify on one aspect viz. what will be the position of an employee if after issuance of cheque, the Managing Director or Senior Authority instructs the bank to “Stop Payment” the cheque.
The basic question is whether employee is liable under section 138 on cheque signed by him on behalf
of the company, when the said cheque is instructed for “Stop Payment” by the Managing Director or the Senior Authority of the company after issuance.
If the answer is in affirmative, whether this is not against the natural justice to an employee. Because
for the act of senior authority a junior employee is liable & the senior employee is exempted under the section 138 of N.I.act. If junior employee is liable along with Managing Director whether this is not a channel through which another case like “ satyam” can be created. Whether industrial growth of India will not hamper if employee do not sign the cheque ?
I will be happy if expert opinion is given on the above point. The said judgment is as follows ;
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1130-31 OF 2003
K.K. Ahuja ... Appellant
Vs.
V.K. Vora & Anr. ... Respondents
JUDGMENT
R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
The question as to who can be said to be persons "in-charge of, and was responsible to the company for the business of the company" referred to in section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave by a complainant.
2. The appellant filed two complaints (Crl. Comp.No.58/2001 and59/2001) in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, against M/s.Motorol Speciality Oils Ltd. (`the Company' for short) and eight others under section 138 of the Act. The first complaint was in regard to dishonour of five cheques (each for Rs.5,00,000/-, all dated 28.2.2001). The second complaint was in regard to dishonour of three cheques (for Rs.3 lakhs, 3 lakhs and 10 lakhs dated 31.10.2000, 30.11.2000 and 20.12.2000 respectively). The cheques were alleged to have been drawn in favour of the appellant's proprietary concern (M/s Delhi Paints & Oil Traders) by the company represented by its Chairman. In the said complaints, the appellant had impleaded nine persons as accused, namely, the company (A-1), its Chairman (A-2), four Directors (A-3 to A-6) as also its Vice-President (Finance), General Manager and Deputy General Manager (A-7, A-8 and A-9 respectively). In the complaint the complainant averred that "at the time of the commission of offence, accused 2 to 9 were in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of day to day business of accused No.1" and that therefore they were deemed to be guilty of offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the Act and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant also alleged that respondents 2 to 9 were directly and actively involved in the financial dealings of the company and that the accused had failed to make payment of the cheques which were dishonoured. In the pre-summoning evidence, the appellant reiterated that accused 2 to 9 were responsible for the conduct of d
A Truthseeker
30 August 2009 at 09:17
Gandhiji spake "India lives in village". the majority of us do not know about our legal rights. when our person or property is violated we yearn that the wrong doer would be punished but most of the crime do not even come to light. the Govt. has taken measures to check the health of general public by establishing rural hospitals. we have now legal services authrity at every subdivisional court.can people be served like doctors?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Discharge u/s 245 CrPc
Ld Counsel,
What is the main diff between discharge u/s 239 and u/s 245.
How long will the prosecution seek time to file counter and get ready for arguments.
Is it possible for the court to frame charges during the pendency of dischagarge petition in the same court.
Pls clarify
Thanks