Ranganath
21 August 2009 at 20:55
Ld counsels,
Is it possible to obtain stay while the petition to quash is admitted.
Is it required to file 2 separate petitions or can it be done in a single petition.
Pls clarify
sanjaygarg796@gmail.com
21 August 2009 at 08:31
A notice was issued by me under section 28 of the PNDT Act to Appropriate Authority to take action action agaisnt the doctor who voilated the provision of PNDT Act and according to section 17(4)(C) of PNDT Act the CMO is duty bound to investigate the complaints but no action was taken by CMO on the notice given by me. Whether I can file criminal complaint under section 25 against the CMO for voilating the provisin of PNDT Act?
Md Shadab Ansari
21 August 2009 at 00:37
An army man is sending obscene mails n scraps to a girl who is also from army.How the girl prosecute that man?Can he be prosecuted under Information Technology Act and IPC.Are there special procedure for them?Is civilian laws applicable to them?Please give me detail how to prosecute him?Thanks
K.Ravichandren
20 August 2009 at 17:21
In a 13n N.I. Act, i am the complainant.The accused filed cor quash petition in the High Court and it was dismissed. He filed another petition for the dispensement of his appearance and the High Court gave only six hearings for which he need not appear and after that he should regularly appear and co-operate with the complaint for the 138 case. But the accused is absent from the year 2001 and court issued NBW against him. Now after nearly 8 years, he filed petition for recall of the NBW stating he was under a wrong impression he need not appear before the trial court after 6 weeks. I searched for relevant case laws in support of my proposed version that the warrant should not be recalled unless otherwise he should assure that he would not absent for the trial hereafter and also should deposit the twice the amount of the cheque with the court(Cheque amount is Rs.5,00,000/-). Now can anybody suggest me any other better condition that this and i may also required for authorities in this regard and also to secure the amount of the cheque
sujatanabar
20 August 2009 at 16:44
In cheque dishonour case , after the accused has be plrciamed offender, Can the Over draft account of an accused be attached with the order of attachement from the court. any case law to support the same.
Subhash
20 August 2009 at 11:55
Due to excessive harassment by money lender, plaintiff's husband committed suicide. Complaint was lodged by plaintiff. Anticipatory bail was granted by court to accused. Is there any judgement of Supreme Court or Bombay High Court or any other High Court, for cancellation of such bail? Your cooperation will be obliged. Thanks in advance.
darshiv
20 August 2009 at 01:19
is playing outdoor games in society against law and a criminal offence?
is their any law saying that children cannot play in the society compound??
please answer me this clearly suggesting the solution.Also give the related annexture details.
thank You<
PRAKASHCHANDRA MARU
19 August 2009 at 23:25
hello all learned i would like to know as that inthe rape case the complainant is not present before the trial court since long ago how it is possible to complete the case without the testonmany of the victimn inform me the reason of the not present before the honcourt is that the compalaint was out of state residence thanks in advance
Adinath@Avinash Patil
19 August 2009 at 22:21
What is the maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" and whether it is applicable in indian court of laws.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
304A IPC
S.304A of IPC reads - "Whoever causs the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act....."
Suppose the sentance would have been, "Whoever causes the death of any person by any rash or negliggent act...". Would the meaning differ?
Does the use of the word "doing" in the section has any significance
Is there a difference in meaning of the two sentance mentioned in the query. One with the word "doing" and the other without the word "doing".
According to me both the sentance make sense. If both the sentance are making the same sense, then is not the word "doing" in the first sentance redundant?
According to me though both the sentance make sense, they may not be meaning the same. If that is so what is the difference in the meaning?