Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.38 seconds)
Chandra Gupta Talreja vs State Of Telangana on 23 November, 2021 cites

Randheer Singh vs The State Of U.P. on 26 July, 2021

Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P.3, learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that since there is civil litigation already pending and that the 2nd respondent is using the criminal procedure process only to harass the petitioners, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 2 (2018) 7 SCC 581 3 Manu/SC/0859/2021 9 GSD, J Crlp_13700_2018 Reiterating the allegations made in the complaint, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the complaint was lodged immediately after knowing about the forgery made by A-1 and A-2 and, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint does not stand and the same has to be decided in the trial since the limitation aspect is a mixed question of law and fact. It is also submitted that the charge sheet was filed when it was categorically found that the signatures in question and the standard signatures are not by single person, as such, the argument of the petitioners that the signatures were not compared with contemporaneous signatures is again a triable issue and the fact finding Court can only conclude the same after examining the witnesses. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioners that constable was not accompanied when the injured was treated as out-patient also does not stand to the scrutiny since P.C.No.9174 of P.S. Begum Bazar had accompanied the injured Dinesh Sharma to the Hospital and Dr.B.Shankar had treated and issued the Wound Certificate and the original Medico Legal Record Certificate was obtained by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the same was handed over to the patient is incorrect or for that matter the said certificate was produced by the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that the various documents filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the 10 GSD, J Crlp_13700_2018 proceedings in C.C.No.230 of 2018 are all unconcerned documents of the offences alleged against the petitioners in the charge sheet and the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioners should only be considered on examining the witnesses, who are concerned with the said documents by the trial Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners sought to rely upon the Will of the husband of the 2nd respondent, but that can only be considered at the time of trial and that the contents of the Will cannot be the ground to quash the proceedings in C.C. without examining the witnesses to speak about the Will. It is further pertinent to submit that the son of the 2nd respondent had sought information under R.T.I. Act from the office of the Registrar, Red Hills, Hyderabad, to produce the copy of the alleged Will, but it was informed that there is no original Will Deed copy said to have been deposited, hence the allegation of execution of Will does not arise and further the contentions of the petitioners shall not be considered for the purpose of quashing the proceedings. It is also submitted that the petitioners sought to rely upon the Income Tax Returns of the husband of the 2nd respondent, but the said Income Tax Returns cannot be put into service to quash the offences against the petitioners and that the said Income Tax Returns shall be filed purely for a different purpose and the same shall not be used to disprove the allegations in the charge sheet. It is further submitted that after filing the present quash petition, the 11 GSD, J Crlp_13700_2018 petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.1004 of 2019 in C.C.No.230 of 2018 before the trial Court seeking discharge. By an order, dated 12.07.2019, the trial Court dismissed the said discharge petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed Crl.R.P.No.127 of 2019 before the VII-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. By an order, dated 21.10.2017, the said revision was dismissed holding the quash petition is pending before this Court. It is also submitted that the industry for which reconstitution is affected on forging the signatures by the petitioners 1 and 2 is not claimed in a suit as his property is altogether a different issue and the charge sheet shall not be quashed without there being conclusion in a trial after examination of witnesses and that the pendency of civil suit shall not deter initiation of criminal proceedings. It is also submitted that the material produced and the charge sheet laid by the prosecution prima facie proved that the petitioners have committed the offences as stated in the charge sheet and the same are to be decided in a trial alone by examining the witnesses and the case do not fall under the category of rarest of rare cases.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 68 - Full Document

Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007

Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained."
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 1931 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 3 Next