Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Nisrin Mustafa Merchant vs State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2026 cites

Ajahar Ali vs State Of West Bengal on 4 October, 2013

3. Mr. Krunal Shah, learned advocate for the applicant referring to the judgment in the case of Ajahar Ali v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31 as well as in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Sri Chand, (2015) 11 SCC 229, submitted that outraging the modesty of a woman is a heinous crime, where no benefit of the Act should be granted and submitted that being a heinous offence, impugned judgment and order granting probation under Section 4 of the Act be quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 was convicted by the learned JMFC, Surat in Criminal Case no. 65011 of 2013 for a period of six months and fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, one month simple imprisonment by judgment and order dated 26.4.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused had preferred Criminal Appeal no.102 of 2018 before the District and Sessions Judge, Surat. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that the original Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:23:18 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/343/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined complainant was not a party to the appeal. After hearing the appeal, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge called upon the report under Section 4 of the Act and while confirming the order passed by the learned JMFC, Surat dated 26.4.2018 in Criminal Case no.65011 of 2013, granted probation under Section 4 of the Act by directing the accused to execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- towards good behaviour and conduct for six months before the concerned Police Station and by modifying the conviction granted probation. 3.1 Mr. Shah submitted that against that order, the complainant had preferred Criminal Appeal no. 2371 of 2025, but during the course of of hearing, the applicant came to know that against the order granting benefit under Section 3 or 4 of the Act by the learned Appellate Court, then, revision under Section 11(4) of the Act would lie and not the appeal and therefore, Court had permitted the applicant - complainant to withdraw the appeal with a liberty to file Criminal Revision Application and vide order dated 23.9.2025, Criminal Appeal no.2371 of 2025 was withdrawn and hence, the present Criminal Revision Application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 39 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Sri Chand on 11 May, 2015

3. Mr. Krunal Shah, learned advocate for the applicant referring to the judgment in the case of Ajahar Ali v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31 as well as in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Sri Chand, (2015) 11 SCC 229, submitted that outraging the modesty of a woman is a heinous crime, where no benefit of the Act should be granted and submitted that being a heinous offence, impugned judgment and order granting probation under Section 4 of the Act be quashed and set aside. The respondent no.2 was convicted by the learned JMFC, Surat in Criminal Case no. 65011 of 2013 for a period of six months and fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, one month simple imprisonment by judgment and order dated 26.4.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the accused had preferred Criminal Appeal no.102 of 2018 before the District and Sessions Judge, Surat. Learned advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that the original Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Mon Apr 20 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 20 21:23:18 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/343/2026 ORDER DATED: 16/04/2026 undefined complainant was not a party to the appeal. After hearing the appeal, the learned 3rd Additional District Judge called upon the report under Section 4 of the Act and while confirming the order passed by the learned JMFC, Surat dated 26.4.2018 in Criminal Case no.65011 of 2013, granted probation under Section 4 of the Act by directing the accused to execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- towards good behaviour and conduct for six months before the concerned Police Station and by modifying the conviction granted probation. 3.1 Mr. Shah submitted that against that order, the complainant had preferred Criminal Appeal no. 2371 of 2025, but during the course of of hearing, the applicant came to know that against the order granting benefit under Section 3 or 4 of the Act by the learned Appellate Court, then, revision under Section 11(4) of the Act would lie and not the appeal and therefore, Court had permitted the applicant - complainant to withdraw the appeal with a liberty to file Criminal Revision Application and vide order dated 23.9.2025, Criminal Appeal no.2371 of 2025 was withdrawn and hence, the present Criminal Revision Application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - P C Ghosh - Full Document
1   2 Next