Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Maharashtra vs Sayeed Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rahim on 10 February, 2012

State vs Mohd. Hanif on 22 October, 2013

10. PW­2, complainant is the material witness, but he did not support the case of the prosecution as he did not identify the accused persons. PW­2 was cross­examined by Ld. APP for the State, but nothing material came in his cross­ FIR no. 717/06 State Vs Mohd. Hanif & Ors. 6 of 8 7 examination. On the other hand, the deposition of PW­3 and PW­9, who are recovery witnesses according to the prosecution, are not trustworthy as there are contradictions in their depositions. PW­3 deposed that at about 04­15 a.m., the accused persons came on their Motor Cycle and they were apprehended. Personal search of the accused was conducted and one purse containing Rs.2,020/­ was recovered from Mohd. Hanif and mobile phone Nokia was recovered from the possession of accused Mohd. Nizam. Whereas, PW­9 deposed that he arrested the accused persons at about 05­40 a.m. on 31.12.2006. PW­9 further deposed that he did not make any search of the accused persons and the case properties were produced by the accused themselves. PW­9 also admitted that the place of occurrence is thickly populated and residential area and a number of jhuggis situated there. It is difficult to believe that if the place of occurrence is thickly populated area and a number of jhuggis are situated there, then, why no public person was made a witness regarding the arrest and recovery of the purse and mobile phone from the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Rahim Ansari on 18 December, 2012

In the present case, it is evident that no such FIR No. 606/05 Page 5 of 7 State vs. Rahim Ansari sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop­keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC''. Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:­ ' It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashish vs State on 2 March, 2012

(19) It may further be noted that this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code is required to consider the impugned F.I.R. or complaint at its face value. In addition to these, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Code it is not necessary to examine the evidence in detail and presume that on investigation or further trial being conducted whether the same would result into conviction or acquittal. The civil remedy which is in the instance case resorted to by the complainant has to be examined by the competent civil court on its own merits, whereas the impugned complaint has to be examined in light of the allegations made therein. On taking the impugned complaint at its face value therefore, in the opinion of this Court, as observed by the Apex Court in the case reported in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sayed Mohammed Masood (supra) requires to be brought to its logical end and considering the fact that the present application is filed at a very primitive stage even before the cognizance is to be taken, no interference is called for to exercise inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code.
Gujarat High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

Mahendra Soni & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 15 January, 2014

In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sayed Mohammed Masood (supra), it was held materials collected during preliminary investigation are relevant when the issue is one of quashing of the FIR. In this case the FIR has been culminated in the charge sheet and the materials collected during investigation clearly indicates that the allegation made in the FIR on the face of the averment made in the affidavit-in-opposition and vacating application and the materials collected during investigation stands contrary and no offence is made out.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - A K Roy - Full Document

Naresh Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 February, 2012

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of 'State of Maharashtra vs. Sayed Mohammed Masood and another, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 177 has held that simple breach of contract or a case involving pure civil dispute would not attrract the penal provisions contained in the IPC either under Sections 406 or Section 420 IPC thereof. Every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those case breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention of cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In paragraph 15 , Crl. Misc. No. M-65923 of 2006 (O&M) -6- it has been held as under:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - R Bahri - Full Document

Meera Goyal vs State, Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 15 March, 2019

Impugned orders are assailed by learned senior counsel for petitioner- Meera Goyal on the ground that merely because money received by her was not returned to complainant-Priti Saraf, would not justify her prosecution for the offence of cheating. It is pointed out that Crl.M.C. 1718/2017 Page 3 of 9 Crl.M.C. 3142/2017 complainant after encashing the refunded cheque of ₹5.40 crore (which was part of sale consideration) had replied to legal notice sent by petitioner-Meera Goyal while asserting that Agreement to Sell in question was still valid and subsisting but complainant failed to come forward with balance sale consideration. Reliance is placed upon decisions in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Neph India Ltd. 2006 (6) SCC 736; Chandran Ratnaswami vs. K.C. Alanisami 2013 (6) SCC 740; State of Maharashtra Vs. Sayed Mohammed Masood & anr. 2009 (4) J.C.C. 3025; Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 373; Uma Shanker Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2005 (10) SCC 336; G. Sagar Suri Vs. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636; Murari Lal Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh (2005) 13 SCC 609 and Ramdev Food Product Private Limited Vs. State of Gujrat (2015) 6 SCC 439 to submit that every breach of contract does not constitute offence of cheating and since there was no intention of cheating from its inception, therefore, petitioner- Meera Goyal cannot be prosecuted for the offence of cheating, as no offence of cheating is made out and that the dispute between the parties gives rise to civil liability and no criminal offence is made out.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S Gaur - Full Document
1   2 Next