LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label 417. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 417. Show all posts
Saturday, July 26, 2014

Quashing of private complaint under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 IPC. - stop the payment of cheques as those are stolen- but Bank Manger received the cheque without intimation - the complainant received cheque bounce notices - High court dismissed the petition under sec.482 - Apex court held that It is no doubt true that the Courts have to be very careful while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the same time we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold. A clear reading of the complaint does not make out any offence against the appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. We are of the view that even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit. It all amounts to negligence in discharging official work at the maximum it can be said that it is dereliction of duty.In view of our above discussion, we have come to an irresistible conclusion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. is a pure abuse of process of law and the complaint case deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice.We accordingly allow this appeal setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court by quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant in C.C. No. 2397 of 2012 under Sections 34, 379, 411, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.= RISHIPAL SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41732

›
  Quashing of private complaint under Sections  34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458  and  477  IPC. - stop the payment of cheques as tho...
Saturday, April 5, 2014

Sec. 90 of I.P.C. , Sec.376, 417, and 419 I.P.C.- Marriage with already married man and living with him for some time - disputes arose due to elders interference No Rape 376 , No 417 and 419 of I.P.C.- Trial court punished under Rape , High court modified and set aside the punishment under sec. 417 and 419 and punished - both courts applied the law wrongly to the set of facts - Apex court held that We are in no manner of doubt that in the conspectus that unfolds itself in the present case, the prosecutrix was aware that the Appellant was already married but, possibly because a polygamous relationship was not anathema to her because of the faith which she adheres to, the prosecutrix was willing to start a home with the Appellant. In these premises, it cannot be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant is culpable for the offence of rape; nay, reason relentlessly points to the commission of consensual sexual relationship, which was brought to an abrupt end by the appearance in the scene of the uncle of the prosecutrix. Rape is indeed a reprehensible act and every perpetrator should be punished expeditiously, severally and strictly. However, this is only possible when guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In our deduction there was no seduction; just two persons fatally in love, their youth blinding them to the futility of their relationship.= VINOD KUMAR …..APPELLANT .…..APPELLANT Versus STATE OF KERALA …..RESPONDENT=2014 ( Apr.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41385

›
Sec. 90 of I.P.C. , Sec.376, 417, and  419 I.P.C.- Marriage with already married man and living with him for some time - disputes arose due...