Ankit
09 July 2017 at 19:25
1. On 26-04-2000 a person submitted an application in court under section 156(3) CrPC stating that on 11-04-2000 neighbor entered my house at 6 pm and did obscene act with my wife. My wife gave written complaint in the police station on 11-04-2000 for the same.
2. On 23-5-2000 libel / complaint (parivaad) was filed in the court. Court called for investigation report from the police. Police sent the final report closing the case and one other report 182 IPC against the complainant.
3. Under 200 and 202 CrPC court had taken witnesses and then sent summon to the party under section 204 CrPC. In summoning order court has not even mentioned anything about the police report.
4. Under 244 CrPC there were evidences from 3 witnesses, all of them claimed time of incidence as 6 pm and went to police station at 6.30. The lady with which the incident happened claimed that the time of incident is 2 pm and said she went to police station at 6:30 pm.
5. On the argument on the charge we said the victim is claiming time of incident as 2pm while others are claiming it as 6pm, but court framed the charge on accused.
6. All the proceedings are going on libel and 156(3). The original written complaint filed by the lady on 11-04-2000 is neither with the police and nor in the court files.
7. Without original complaint and victim claiming time to be 2 pm and rest claiming 6 pm. If we file a revision in High Court under section 482 CrPC then according to you will the case be closed?
Please guide us in the above matter and guide us with any ruling regarding the same. It will be great if we can contact you via phone.
inderjeet
30 June 2017 at 20:06
If original documents lost destroyed and it's photo copy available has any value in court to prove something
sidharth
08 June 2017 at 13:20
Good afternoon sirs,
In a specific POCSO case,there are 32 witnesses against me.31 witnesses have already deposed before the special court in my favour, but the remaining 01 witness has deposed that i had threatened her not to tell anyone about her being molested by another person [who is also an accused in this case].
My question : Will the Judge convict me or acquit me, as she is the lone witness against me?
Advocate M J
20 May 2017 at 19:11
GOOD EVENING THE LEARNED JURY,
DIRECTION TO THE POLICE TO REOPEN THE CASE.
1.A PCR was filed against co-operative Bank
2.The magistrate ordered the police to investigate & file a report due to which
the FIR was registered.
3.After which the bank filed Cr.Pl to squash the FIR but unfortunately it din't
happen instead the H.C passed an order
saying that there exists a civil & criminal
angle & permitted the police to investigate the case. The bank put influence & got the B REPORT saying that
exists a civil case only. Basing on the B
report The PCR was dismissed. There is no
evidence supporting the B REPORT. The
statement of my home loan a/c is fully
manipulated & forged. I have taken 10lakhs & paid 15 lakhs now the bank is
asking me to pay 25 lakhs as per their
account statement which is forged. Can I
file a criminal petition to re-open the
case on the B REPORT &conduct fresh investigation & file a chart sheet. Basing on the B report the PCR got dismissed. kindly guide me what to do since my client wants to close the H.L.A/c & settle the matter once for all
failing which has to shell out several
lakhs more than what he has to pay or loose his shelter in spite of he paying
the full loan who is a retired teacher
please advice me how to go about this to
save a retired teacher who cannot pay
extra amount due to which he will have no
shelter & will be on road. please help me to help him. tks.
jains
18 May 2017 at 15:38
In a s 138 ni act case, complainant is a stranger to the accused. Accused believes that he does not know accused. So he want to prove it. Whether some photos can be seen to the complainant to identify the accused from it. What is the provision.?
Vasudevan
12 May 2017 at 23:02
In Delhi District Court, in case of Disproportionate Assets it is stated that the Gross salary minus Income Tax paid to be taken as income. They had cited Circular no.21/40/99 -PD(Pt.) dated 28.11.2001 of the CBI. Can any body send the copy of circular to my e-mail id vasuvenkat61@yahoo.in. Or else any judgement of High Courts or Supreme Court to the above said effect. Kindly spare the same if available and oblige.
ramamohanrao
11 May 2017 at 09:37
i am a member of a regd club cooperative societies act.the facilities of the usage of canteen and others were stopped abruptly without any notice.i hd never been in the defaulters list during all the years.the services were stopped presumably that i had seconded another members 3 years back who failed to pay their subscriptions which was never brought to my notice.the amounts were added to my latest bill.by this action of the management of the club i had suffered insult and loss of prestige among other members and staff of the club. i had allready wrote a letter about 40 days back for which no reply was recieved. i had also sent a lawyers notice on 2nd may for an action to be taken within a week.since i have not recieved any response to my communications can i proceed for criminal defamation against the elected members individually and severally? if so under what sections? thanking for a detailed cosidered opinions of the fraternity.
b.ramamohanrao
Sagar Kotak
08 February 2017 at 13:29
The present case pertains to Cheque bouncing U/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the state of Gujarat, Kutch. May I be apprised by the respected learned counsels on the following subject issues:
1. What is the precise amount or percentage of Court fees to paid before filing a Criminal Complaint before the Magistrates Court in the state of Gujarat, Kutch ?
2. I have heard that the complainant is not required to pay any court fees for filing complaints U/s. 138 of N.I. Act. To the contrary, the Accused is required to pay the required Court fees. Is this true ?
3. I have also heard that if settlement is arrived at between the complainant and the Accused, then in that case, 10 % of the cheque amount has to be paid as 'Court Fees. Is this True ? If yes, then who is required to pay the said Court fees in lieu of Settlement - Complainant or the Accused or 50-50 ratio ?
Awaiting the precious inputs of all the esteemed lawyers.
Warm Regards.
K.CHELLIAH
05 February 2017 at 10:33
Wat s d parent case of this prob?
Mrs. Vandana is a professional in the Auckworks Company dealing with Computer Software. She is married to Mr. Sujay who is a lawyer by profession. She is an active blogger and often chats on the internet but one night Vandana was unable to log on to her account. Her friend, Ms. Sanjana called her up and informed her that a chat message was circulating from her account which showed a very vulgar chat of hers with an unknown guy called Mr. Shiv Sharma. Further, she informed her that she has reportedly admitted in the chat that she was having an affair with a guy called Shyam for the last two years behind the back of her husband which was sent to all her contacts and her husband’s contacts as well. The interesting factor was that the chat had been dated 3rd October 2008 while the mail has been circulated on the 5th of October 2008. Mr. Sujay was disturbed with this fact and insisted to sever all ties with Vandana, who, on the other hand, lodged a F.I.R. with the cybercrime cell of the police in Delhi on 7th December, 2008. During the course of investigation it was revealed that there was absence of any specific IP address in India as the blogger had logged through a Proxy Server in Canada. After three months, the police could not locate any person by the name Shiv Sharma, but the person called Mr. Shyam, who was a Diplomat of Kenya in India, had been traced. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs mean while issued a demarche to the Consulate of Kenya at Delhi. The police meanwhile had sealed all the electronic records of Mrs. Vandana and was treating them as evidence. The police charge sheeted Mr. Shyam on 21st July, 2009 for cyber hacking based on the electronic records of Mrs. Vandana available to them. Mrs. Vandana meanwhile broke down mentally as the lawyer she has consulted could not suggest her some proper solution. She, however, accused Shyam for defaming her by way of circulating the chat messages to everyone in her contact list. Shyam denied all the allegations including the ones made by Vandana. In statement Mr. Shyam has contended that he was a good friend of Mrs. Vandana but they were not having any affair and that they both were unaware of any Shiv Sharma. The prosecution contended that Shyam had hacked the account of Mrs. Vandana with the intention to separate Vandana from her husband and also attempted to defame her. The chat had been done through SKYPET network a Proxy Server in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). The police issued a notice for disclosure of the entire transcripts of chats as well the details of users. However, SKYPET has its headquarters in (PoK) and had refused to hand over any details regarding their users on any account. The only record which the prosecution had was the auto saved chat messages on Vandana’s computer which had been there between Vandana and Shyam, no such records were recovered from the computer confiscated from cyber cafe. In those chats it has been seen that Shyam had consistently been saying that he loves Vandana and can go to any extent to get her from the clutches of her husband. The prosecution contends that Shiv Sharma and Shyam is the same individual and Shyam had planned to break all the ties between Vandana and her husband and thus get her for himself. When the case was put forth before the court for trial, the accused contended that the electronic records provided could not be treated as evidence according to the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and also that, a chat which had been recorded on a foreign server cannot be treated as a piece of evidence in this regard. The defence further contended that on the alleged date i.e. 3rd and 5th of October he was in the Consulate Office of Tanzania at Delhi and he had also produced a log book of the Consulate as evidence to show that he was at Consulate. Besides, the trial court concluded that the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not have any specific provision to punish a person based on the facts of the given case. The Trial Court has acquitted him from all charges completely ignoring the issue of defamation. The State has now moved in appeal before the Delhi High Court to prosecute Shyam for the offences of cyber hacking and cyber defamation, the accused pleads that the High Court does not have any jurisdiction in this case as the Cyber Tribunal has been vested with the jurisdiction to deal with these cases. Besides, the High Court cannot go back to the facts of the case and deal with merits in order to come to a judgment and the Trial Court has been right in deciding that the electronic records cannot serve as evidence. However the petitioner relied upon the doctrine of exclusive knowledge and contended that burden of proof is reversed. Therefore accused was under a liability to prove his innocence and show that he had not done any of the chats to which accused contends that the exclusive theory will not hold good in this case as he was not present during the time of the chat in contention and that he could not be made to give proof incriminating against him in this regard. The Appeal is set for hearing before Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 26th March 2011. Note: The teams are required to prepare a case from both the sides.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Legal validity of compromise/settlement/razinama entered PS
What is the legal validity of a compromise/settlement/razinama reached by the parties in the police station? Is it binding on the parties? Can the court refuse cognizance on the basis of such compromise?
Situation : a drunk gets beaten up by his neighbor, intially the mlc does not disclose any serious injuries, the drunk who's bac is at .800% is asked to sign a "razinama" he does so, on the next day he feels pain in his eyes, he thinks it's just swelling and does not go the doctor, eventually one of his eyes starts to loose sight, he goes to a doctor and he then undergoes immediate surgery, the drunk files a case in court, the police file atr stating he was drunk, intial mlc does not disclose his injury and he has already settled, can the court deny cognizance on the basis of that razinama? Does the police have the power to "settle" such case? If so, under what provision of law? What is evidentary value of such a compromise? Any citations in this regard? Kindly share your knowledge, it will help me immensely. Thank you.