Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 176 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sh. Narendra Kumar Srivastava vs The State Of Bihar on 4 February, 2019
He further submitted that the offence under Section 176 I.P.C. has been
registered as against the Government servant, that too on private complaint by
third party. It is not sustainable in view of Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. Insofar as the
offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation
made against the petitioner about the losses of valuable by anyone and there is
no aggrieved person about the losses and valuable property. Without any
complaint from any official, for non compliance of the official duty, the first
respondent without even conducting any enquiry mechanically registered the case
for the offences under Section 176 as against the petitioner. He also relied upon
the judgment in the case of State of UP Vs. Mata Bhikh and Others reported in
(1994) 4 SCC 95, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2019 dated 04.02.2019 in the case of Sh.Narendra
Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Section 383 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 463 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 475 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 476 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P vs Mata Bhikha And Others on 9 March, 1994
He further submitted that the offence under Section 176 I.P.C. has been
registered as against the Government servant, that too on private complaint by
third party. It is not sustainable in view of Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. Insofar as the
offence under Section 384 I.P.C. is concerned, there is absolutely no allegation
made against the petitioner about the losses of valuable by anyone and there is
no aggrieved person about the losses and valuable property. Without any
complaint from any official, for non compliance of the official duty, the first
respondent without even conducting any enquiry mechanically registered the case
for the offences under Section 176 as against the petitioner. He also relied upon
the judgment in the case of State of UP Vs. Mata Bhikh and Others reported in
(1994) 4 SCC 95, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2019 dated 04.02.2019 in the case of Sh.Narendra
Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.