Posts

criminal laws - what is prohibited whether filing of two firs by one part against same accused or filing case and counter case against each other ? = if two FIRs are filed in relation to the same offence and against the same accused, whether the subsequent FIR was liable to be quashed or not. = the lodgment of two FIRs is not permissible in respect of one and the same incident. The concept of sameness has been given a restricted meaning. It does not encompass filing of a counter-FIR relating to the same or connected cognizable offence. What is prohibited is any further complaint by the same complainant and others against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case under the Code, for an investigation in that regard would have already commenced and allowing registration of further complaint would amount to an improvement of the facts mentioned in the original complaint

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 408 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.7970 of 2014)
P. Sreekumar ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Kerala & Ors. ….Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted.
2) This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 27.05.2014 passed by
the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum in Criminal
M.C. No.2641 of 2007 whereby the High Court
allowed the petition filed by the accused-respondent
No.3 herein and quashed the FIR(Annexure II),
1
charge-sheet(Annexure III) and all consequent
proceedings arising therefrom pending as C.C.
No.2682 of 2002 on the file of the JFCM-II,
Ernakulum.
3) Facts involved in the case lie in a narrow
compass so also the issue involved in the appeal is
a short one. The facts are mentioned hereinbelow:
4) There is one public charitable Trust by name -
Vidyodaya Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the
Trust") having its office at …

Section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/A4 seeking to quash the proceedings against him - dismissed - creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceeding at the same time. Both the proceeding, thus, can run parallely.= standard of proof in a criminal case vis-a-vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt; in a civil suit `preponderance of probability' would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree. Therefore, though the order of the CESTAT attained finality on civil side, still criminal proceedings against fraud and cheating can be independently established by the prosecution.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO         

Criminal Petition No.2265 of 2015

02.03.2018

Anil Kumar Aggarwal.... Petitioner/Accused No.4

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,Visakhapatnam,Rep. By its Public Prosecuto

Counsel for Petitioner  : Pillix Law Firm

Counsel for Respondent  : Sri K. Surender,
                          Special Public Prosecutor for CBI

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1)AIR 1992 SC 604 
2)AIR 2010 SC 3624 
3)AIR 2002 SC 3372 = 2002 Crl.L.J. 43l43
4)AIR 2009 SC 2195 
5)(2008) 9 SCC 677
6)(2009) 13 SCC 729

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO         

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2265 of 2015   

ORDER: 
     This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner/A4
seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.29 of 2006 on the
file of Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam.
2)      The Inspector of Police, CBI, SPE, Visakhapatnam filed charge
sheet against A1 to A5 for the offences …

Criminal trial = APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS = Any violation in the procedure, by the people concerned, cannot be allowed to operate to the detriment of the victims, who have no role to play in the compliance and non compliance of the prescribed procedure. The sentry book, no doubt, shows that the accused was on sentry duty from 18:00 to 20:00 hours; P.W.13 explains that no entries would be made in the sentry book, if people go out for short time. ; When something which finds place in the report, does not find place in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement, it loses significance as an omission, while appreciating the credibility of the witness.

THE HONBLE SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI     

Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2008

01.03.2018

Punam Satyanarayana Dora..... Appellant

State of A.P. ..... Respondent

Counsel for Appellant:Mr. G.V.Shivaji

Counsel for Respondents:Public Prosecutor (AP)

<GIST   :

>HEAD NOTE : 

? Cases referred :

SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI   

Criminal Appeal No.199 of 2008

JUDGMENT: 

        Impugning the legality of the judgment passed by the Sessions
Judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in S.C. No.8 of 2005 on 06.02.2008,
this appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the accused in Crime
No.72 of 2004 of G.R.P. Rajahmundry Police Station.

        For the benefit of better understanding of the case, the facts,
in brief, are stated as follows.

        The accused was working as a Police Constable in Godavari
Outpost Police Station, Rajahmundry.  The victim girl is resident of
Poolaa village in West Godavari District.  Her marriage was held with one
S.Subrahmanyam of Undi village.  Due to disputes with her husband,
sh…

or.21, rule 90 CPC- claim petition by society - non production of mortgage deed - sale conducted by suppressing the mortgage - trial court and appellant court dismissed the claim petition - High court remand the case for fresh disposal giving an opportunity to the society to adduce fresh evidence as there are allegations of misappropriation of public fund by Jdr in the capacity of president of society.

HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO       

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5834 of 2011   

09-03-2018

Rowthulapudi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Petitioner

Kalla Sitaramam and 4 others .Respondents   

Counsel for the petitioner :Smt. B. Vijaya Lakshmi

Counsel for the respondents : Sri KB. Ramanna Dora

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:   


? Cases referred
1.2015 (4) ALD 693
2.2011 (3) ALD 626


HONBLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO       

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5834 of 2011   

ORDER: 
      The revision petitioner is the unsuccessful party in
E.A.No.89 of 2009 and CMA.No.36 of 2010 maintained the 
revision against the concurrent dismissal orders and findings of
the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram (Executing Court)
vis--vis learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East
Godavari District (first appellate Court).  The revision petitioner is
a third party to the proceedings in O.S.No.21 of 2006 and
E.P.No.1 of 2008.  The plaintiff in the suit was one K.Sitaramam

Section 500 IPC = information given by the accused to the reports, without any intent of getting the same published.= whether the publication made, allegedly, containing imputation which would harm the complainant, is at the behest of the accused. The above discussion has already surfaced the innocence of the accused with regard to the publication made in the newspaper. It is only when the accused was enquired by the reporters, that she had to reveal the reason for her attempt to commit suicide and in that process, she revealed the reason but it is not with an intent to get the same published through P.Ws.2 and 3. It is only P.Ws.2 and 3, who decided to publish the information, which was divulged to them. Hence, the defamation, if any caused by the article, is due to the publication made by P.Ws.2 and 3 but not by the information given by the accused to them, without any intent of getting the same published.

SMT. JUSTICE T. RAJANI 

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1094 of 2008   

22.02.2018

Dr. Tumu Venkata Ramana Chandra Prasad.... APPELLANT     

Smt. K. Varalakshmi and another.... RESPONDENTS   

Counsel for Appellant:PARTY-IN-PERSON   

Counsel for Respondents:MR. GLV RAMANA MURTHY   PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)             

<GIST   :

>HEAD NOTE:   

?Cases referred:

SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI   
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1094 of 2008   
JUDGMENT: 

        Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused in CC.No.133 of 2004,
by virtue of the judgment dated 05.06.2008, passed by the Munsif
Magistrate, Vinukonda, the appellant filed this appeal.

2.      Briefly, the facts of the case can be stated as under:
        The defacto complainant, who is the appellant herein, took
charge as Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Vinukonda on
22.05.2002 and he was in charge till 21.03.2003. He was awarded
best Family Planning Surgeon by the District Medical and Health
Officer, Guntur, the then Honble Health Minister and the D…