Vinod Kumar Gupta
24 November 2017 at 21:46
Bounce cheque was lost. I submitted photocopy of dishonoured cheque with application of sec.65 evidence act with an affidavit now for cognizance Magistrate ask me to show any ruling that cognizance can be taken on photocopy of cheque though there is application of 65 evidence act and report of lost cheque in police. Please send me ruling or judgements that cognizance can be taken on secondary evidence also.
Anonymous
24 November 2017 at 00:01
Bounce cheque was lost. I submitted photocopy of dishonoured cheque with application of sec.65 evidence act with an affidavit now for cognizance Magistrate ask me to show any ruling that cognizance can be taken on photocopy of cheque though there is application of 65 evidence act and report of lost cheque in police. Please send me ruling or judgements that cognizance can be taken on secondary evidence also.
Pk
21 November 2017 at 01:45
Hi,
Can i apply for review or Can i challange the Gujart Hight Court's Judgment against Anticipatory Approval for Criminal case?
Do I need to apply in Supreme Court or in High Court of Gujarat?
If I have to apply in Supreme Court is there any time limit for review or apply in Supreme court?
And what is the Procedure to apply in Supreme court as of I am complaintant.
Does Supreme court have facility to provide PP as in Sessions court and High Court?
rajasekaran
19 November 2017 at 16:27
In 138 NI Act case when the Housing Finance Company evades the notice in 1991 and signatories of the cheque are proceeded with in 1994, can the signatoires of the cheque be aquitted in 1997 because the charges on the company was not pressed as if company was not arrayed as accused ?
In appeal against aqquital u/s 378 of Crpc can a defence following Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 be taken that charges against company was not pressed? The Housing company has surfaced and many have succeded in consumer forums as in Jugmandar Dass Bansal V/S M/S Tapoban Housing Finance Ltd. ,R. Udaya Kumar vs M/s. Tapoban Housing Finance Limited, New Delhi,etc
Anonymous
19 November 2017 at 11:33
It is respectfully submitted that the 1st respondent alleged to have been lodged a report to the 2nd respondent police station on 29.7.2015 stating that she and the petitioner are working as Police Constables in I.T. Cell in Cyberabad Police Commissionerate. It is alleged that the petitioner made the 1st respondent promised her to marry and made her to believe him. It is alleged that on 11.7.2015, the petitioner and the 1st respondent went to Yadagirigutta Temple on a bike, where he booked a room without her knowledge and raped her and promised that he will marry. It is further alleged that the petitioner made a phone call to the 1st respondent and said that marriage engagement was completed with his relative girl and that he and his family members threatened her to kill, if she disclose anything to any one. Basing on the said allegations, the police registered the FIR and subsequently filed the charge sheet. 2. It is respectfully submitted that the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC, according to the 1st respondent was occurred on 11.7.2015, whereas, she made report to the police station on 29.7.2015. Therefore, there is an abnormal delay in lodging the report to the police station. Further, the medical report also certified that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. There is also contradictory statements of the 1st respondent from complaint to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C (. On the ground of abnormal delay and in absence of the medical report, the essential ingredients under Section 376 IPC do not attract, therefore, the proceedings relating to the said offence are liable to be quashed. ( Is it possible or not ?) 3. Now her marriage was fixed and both are agreed to compromise as for CrPC 482.. But her layer is misguided her it's not possible, future problems will happen in personal life and services Maters. Please clarify
Mahesh Revelle
19 November 2017 at 08:06
1. It is respectfully submitted that the 1st respondent alleged to have been lodged a report to the 2nd respondent police station on 29.7.2015 stating that she and the petitioner are working as Police Constables in I.T. Cell in Cyberabad Police Commissionerate. It is alleged that the petitioner made the 1st respondent promised her to marry and made her to believe him. It is alleged that on 11.7.2015, the petitioner and the 1st respondent went to Yadagirigutta Temple on a bike, where he booked a room without her knowledge and raped her and promised that he will marry. It is further alleged that the petitioner made a phone call to the 1st respondent and said that marriage engagement was completed with his relative girl and that he and his family members threatened her to kill, if she disclose anything to any one. Basing on the said allegations, the police registered the FIR and subsequently filed the charge sheet.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the alleged offence under Section 376 IPC, according to the 1st respondent was occurred on 11.7.2015, whereas, she made report to the police station on 29.7.2015. Therefore, there is an abnormal delay in lodging the report to the police station. Further, the medical report also certified that there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse. There is also contradictory statements of the 1st respondent from complaint to the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C (. On the ground of abnormal delay and in absence of the medical report, the essential ingredients under Section 376 IPC do not attract, therefore, the proceedings relating to the said offence are liable to be quashed. ( Is it possible or not ?)
3. Now her marriage was fixed and both are agreed to compromise as for CrPC 482.. But her layer is misguided her it's not possible, future problems will happen in personal life and services Maters. Please clarify.
Balagopal Menon
18 November 2017 at 18:10
Under which provision of the CRPC does the right to appeal lie from the interim order of the Metropolitan Magistrate?
inderjeet
13 November 2017 at 19:49
Compromise was signed and attested by notary to put up before high court for quashing of FIR but the party changed his statement before court that he signed under pressure. Can court be convinced that he was not forced or pressure. Please suggest.
Vaibhav Pratap Chand
08 November 2017 at 00:24
Can Revision lies against the orders under Section 407 to 410 of CrPC? Plz tell me the citation also in both sutuation.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Atrocity case
I hav lodged an atrocity complaint on oppsed party. In that he and his brother got anticipatory bail from distric session court. So my question is that can i go to file the petition of bail rejection to aurangabad hogh court. Also his lawyer has stated false statement in bail applocation so please any1 do suggest me