Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of cognizance and revisional orders for alleged offence under Section 395 IPC. Held application dismissed.
Application for quashing of the impugned orders dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NEG}!COHRTVOLECi'll-MTI’ISGARH, BILASPU#
Criminal Misc. PatitiqnNnJzQ at 20 0$
APPLICANT: Bhullu @ Ram Niwas, S/o Late Atibal Sahu, aged about 32 years, R/o ViHage, Pampapur, P.S. & Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.)
Versus
NON-APPLICANT:
{AppiicationunderSection482oftheCodeofCriminal,Procedure,1973}
Present:
Mr. Itu Rani Mukherjee, counsei for theapalicant.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-appllcant No.2.
Single Bench: Han’ble Mr. T.P. Shanna, J
ORAL JUDGMENT
(7-9-2009)
saw Cr.P.C.
. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that statements of the witnesses recorded) under Sections 200-202 of the Cr.P.C. do not reveal the commission of offence underSection 395 of the'LP.C. by the applicant and the Court below has committed. material irregularity in taking cognizance against the applicant.
jurisdiction. The application is therefore, liable to be dismissed and . it is hereby dismissed.
Sdl— T.P. SHARMA Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Section 482 CrPC application for quashing of lower court orders can be allowed when Section 395 IPC offence is alleged based on witness statements.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhullu @ Ram Niwas
Mr. T.P. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
