shivraj
31 October 2008 at 12:31
whether the power of attorney holder can sign the complaint and filed in the court and also depose on behalf of complinant as he is taken part in the transation of complainant and accused. That the POA has written the promisory note and also written the contents of cheque as per instruction of accused and deposed in court as complainent as he is POA holder?whether the POA can depose and also can sign and verified the complaint give result with current case laws of supreme court?
Tabassum Dalvi
30 October 2008 at 13:55
Can the name of the accused be changed after cognizance of the offence on police report is taken by the court, before framing of the charge? If yes, how?
Tabassum Dalvi
30 October 2008 at 13:54
Can the name of the accused be changed after cognizance of the offence on police report is taken by the court, before framing of the charge? If yes, how?
A.G.Syam kumar
29 October 2008 at 22:05
friends
Have your ever come across any decision of any of the h'ble high courts or h'ble supreme court regarding section 379 of ipc that without having any proper occurrence witness's deposition,a man cannot be convicted for the offense of theft soly on the base that the mentioned was arrested by the police at the time of alleged place of occurrence while the accused was seen running to get in to a bus at the bus stand
The case of the prosecution that the accused was committed theft of a bangle from a kid while the kid was kept by her mother at the time when the mother was attempted to get into a bus at the bus station.no recovery was not effected also
myself was come across with a kerala high court decision.but i could not trace out the same till date
so i am submitting to you all for your kind consideration
sudalaimuthu,
27 October 2008 at 14:44
Hi friends,
A person( Gold smith) was arrested under sec 420 of IPC for deceiving property(jewel) of D1 but the complaint was lodged in the name of his friend of D1. at the time where the D1 gives his jewel to accused for converting the jewel to ornaments his friend was accompanied with him.
Plz clarify the Credibility of complaint with relevant citations.
Nishant Singla
27 October 2008 at 08:38
A ORDER UNDER 156(3) OF crpc FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER 406,420,467,468,471 HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE JUDGE AGAINST MY FATHER.. IN REALTY MOST OF THE ALLEGATION ARE FALSE AS PER RECORD. NOW I WANT TO FILE APPLICATION FOR THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL. CAN I SUCCEED
Nishant Singla
27 October 2008 at 08:38
A ORDER UNDER 156(3) OF crpc FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER 406,420,467,468,471 HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE JUDGE AGAINST MY FATHER.. IN REALTY MOST OF THE ALLEGATION ARE FALSE AS PER RECORD. NOW I WANT TO FILE APPLICATION FOR THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL. CAN I SUCCEED
Nishant Singla
26 October 2008 at 21:50
A PERSON OF MY VILLAGE BY USING FALSE ALLEGATION IN THE COURT OBTAIN ORDER OF JUDGE UNDER 156(3)OR CRPC AT YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA. IN HIS COMPLAINT HE MADE SOME ABOUT 28 ALLEGATION. OF WHICH 21 ALLEGATION ARE FALSE. SO, I WANT TO FILE A QUASHION PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT. CAN I SECCEED OR NOT.THIS IS A PANCHAYAT MATTER. AND IN MOST OF THE MATTER DURING THE TENURE OF MY FATHER HE GAVE HIS CONSENT AS WELL , NOW HE DENOTE THEM FRAUD.
SO, PLZ SEGGEST ME CAN I SUCCED IN MY QUASHION OF FIR MATTER IN HIGH COURT.
Ch. Sujatha
26 October 2008 at 21:29
Respected Seniors,
In a Cheque dishonour case trial court convicted the Accused for a term of 3 months and also awarded compensation to the Complainant an amount of Rs. 25,000/-.
Later Accused preferred an appeal on the Judgement of the Trial Court. While filing the appeal, Appeal Court directed the Accused to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Then the accused deposited the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- in trial Court.
Now my doubt is whether the Complainant entitled to receive the said amount of Rs. 5,000/- or not. If it is possible please refer the provision to file a petition to obtain the said amount.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Regarding false case registered by the Ludhiana Police
DEAR SIR,,
THE UNDERSIGNED IS NATIONAL PRESIDENT OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION FEDERATION OF INDIA (REGD.). MYSELF NEED TO ASK A QUERY REGARDING A FALSE CASE REGISTERED AGAINST ONE MR. NARESH DHALL WHO DARED TO BROUGHT CORRUPT OFFICIALS BOOKED WITH THE HELP OF C.B.I. AND HIMSELF GOT IMPLICATED IN A FALSE CASE REGISTERED BY THE LUDHIANA POLICE AT P.S. KOTWALI ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER (OFFICIATING) OF THE SAME NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA. THE CASE IS AS FOLLOWS:-
IN F.I.R. NO. 81 REGISTERED AT P.S. KOTWALI, LUDHIANA DATED 03-10-2008
U/S 379,419,120B IPC
ALLEGATIONS ALLEGED BY THE COMPLAINANT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY’S DIVISIONAL MANAGER (OFFICIATING) S. JASPAL SINGH
1. THAT ON RECEIPT OF REPORT OF SURVEY BY MITTAL SURVEYORS AS PER THEIR RECOMMENDATION THE DEPARTMENT PROMPTLY COMPLETED ALL FORMALITIES FOR TIMELY DISBURSEMENT OF CLAIM CHEQUE TO NARESH DHALL WHO WAS DULY INFORMED. THAT ON DATED 30-05-2007 COMPLAINANT JASPAL SINGH WAS PRESENT IN HIS ALONGWITH O.P. MALHOTRA DEPUTY MANAGER AND AROUND 4.15 P.M. THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL CAME ALONGWITH ONE GENTLEMAN AND NARESH DHALL INTRODUCED THE SAID GENTLEMAN AS SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI CHANDIGARH. MR. NARESH DHALL ASKED THE COMPLAINANT THAT THIS CLAIM FILE BE SHOWN TO CBI OFFICER FROM CBI AS HE HAS TO PERUSE THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH INVESTIGATION. THE COMPLAINANT JASPAL SINGH BELEIVING THE SAID GENTLEMAN TO BE THE SENIOR OFFICER OF THE CBI HANDED OVER THE CLAIM FILE DOCUMENTS AS TO ASSIST HIM FOR THR PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION. THAT SO CALLED SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI WHILE GOING THROUGH THE CLAIM FILE TOOK OUT THE CLAIM CHEQUE OF RS.6,02,067/= AND LATER ON 6.6.2007 DULY SIGNED CONSENT LETTER OF MR. NARESH DHALL FROM THE CLAIM FILE AND TOLD THAT AS THE MATTER REGARDING THIS CLAIM IS UNDER INVERSTIGATION WITH CBI AS SUCH HE HAS TO DISCUSS WITH SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI UPON WHICH CBI OFFICER STARTED CONTACTING HIS SENIOR OFFICIAL ON TELEPHONE AND WHILE TALKING ON PHONE MOVED OUT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COMPLAINANT WITH CLAIM CHEQUE. NOTEDLY NARESH DHALL KEPT SITTING WITH COMPLAINANT IN THE OFFICE ITSELF AND TOLD JASPAL SINGH THAT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF CBI OFFICIALS HE CAN NOT COMPLY WITH ANY FORMALITY AND ASSURED THAT SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI SHALL BE BACK AS SOON AS HE GET NOD FROM HIS SENIOR OFFICIALS HE WILL SIGN THE RECEIPT. BUT AFTER HAVING WAITED FOR NEARLY 2 HOUR THE SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI DID NOT RETURN AND NARESH DHALL TOLD THE COMPLAINANT THAT THE SENIOR OFFICER OF CBI AND HIS TEAM HAS COME FROM CHANDIGARH IN CONNECTION WITH ___________ OTHER RAIDS TO BE CONDUCTED IN LUDHIANA TODAY AND PROMISED TO COMPLETE AND SIGNED THE REST OF FORMALITIES NEXT DAY.
2. THE COMPLAINANT FURTHER ALLEGED THAT NARESH DHALL NEVER RETURNED AND IT WAS REVEALED LATER ON THAT NO OFFICER OF CBI CHANDIGARH WAS DEPUTED BY CBI WITH NARESH DHALL TO SECURE THE DOCUMENTS AND INSPECT THE FILE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION.
VERSION OF THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL:
1. IF ON 30-05-2007 ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL AND ONE OTHER PERSON (ONLY KNOWN TO HIM) WHO WAS INTRODUCED BY MR. NARESH DHALL AS CBI OFFICER AS THE COMPLAINANT ALLEGED THAT SO CALLED SENIOR OFFICIAL OF CBI WHILE GOING THROUGH THE CLAIM FILE TOOK OUT THE CLAIM CHEQUE OF RS.6,02,067/= WHY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES OF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA DIDN’T INFORM THE POLICE AUTHORITIES AND PROCEED FOR THE STOP PAYMENT OF CHEQUE. ACTUALLY THE CHEQUE WAS IN FAVOUR OF M/S SHALLY COLLECTION WHOSE PROPRIETOR IS MR. NARESH DHALL ONLY & IT WAS A PAYEE’S A/C CHEQUE. THE COMPLAINANT MR. JASPAL SINGH, DIVISIONAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR GANJ MANDI BRANCH, LUDHIANA SIGNED THE SAME CHEQUE ONLY AT THE TIME WHILE HANDING OVER IT TO THE ACCUSED MR. NARESH DHALL WHO WAS THERE ONLY TO OBTAIN THE CHEQUE AFTER HE GOT THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY MR. JASPAL SINGH, DIVISIONAL MANAGER OF THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KESAR