Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.45 seconds)
Tukaram S/O Bajirao Deshmukh And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 13 June, 2017 cites

Smt. Sujata Mukherjee vs Prashant Kumar Mukherjee on 30 April, 1997

1AIR 1973 SC 908 ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:11:43 ::: {18} crwp 792.15 w appln 920.15.odt 17] In the case of Sujata Mukherjee (Smt.) vs. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee 2 relied upon on behalf of respondent/complainant, the Honourable Supreme Court, dealt with the allegations of continuing offence committed in more local areas than one. There were allegations made in the complaint that the complainant was subjected to cruelty persistently at Raigarh and also at Raipur and incident taking place at Raipur is not isolated event but consequential to the series of incidents taking place at Raigarh. Therefore, in view of the provision of Section 178 of Cr.P.C. it was held that the offence of cruelty meted out to the complainant was continuing one. It was also observed that the High Court was wrong in appreciating the scope of the proceeding on the footing that several isolated events had taken place at Raigarh and one isolated incident had taken place at Raipur. Hence, the criminal case filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate was only maintainable against the respondent husband, against whom some overt act at Raipur was alleged. While appreciating the circumstances on record, the Honourable Supreme Court observed in para.7 as under :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 110 - Full Document

Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004

5] Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicants, further assailed that the court of JMFC, Ahmedpur has no jurisdiction to try the said offence. There was no such incident of cruelty or harassment ever occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of learned Magistrate at Ahmedpur. Shri Salunke further urged that the incidents as alleged against the petitioner/applicants all were occurred at Aurangabad. There are no allegations particularly against applicant Shri Tukaram and his wife Vijayabai that they committed crime within the territorial jurisdiction of learned Magistrate at Ahmedpur. Hence, he submits that the learned Magistrate at Ahmedpur has no ::: Uploaded on - 14/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/06/2017 01:11:42 ::: {7} crwp 792.15 w appln 920.15.odt jurisdiction to deal with criminal proceedings instituted against applicants and petitioner Amol. He also harped on the circumstances that in view of allegations made in the FIR it cannot be said that the offence of cruelty was continuing one. In such circumstances the proceedings against these applicants are required to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for petitioner/applicants relied upon the judicial pronouncements of Honourable Apex Court in the case of Bhuraram and others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2008 SC 2666 and in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and others vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and another reported in 2004 Cri.L.J. 4180 : MANU/SC/0635/2004. .
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 438 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next