In this case before District Sessions Judge Thane, the accused-Advocate is prosecuted for offence of assaulting his own wife with intention to kill her and possessing firearm.
State of Maharashtra Vs Ahamed Aasif Fakih on 18 March 2021Category: District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification
Varun Priolkar Vs President Noorami Masjid and 3 Ors on 11 Mar 2021
Additional District Magistrate at Ponda-Goa passed Orders that, loudspeakers may not be used without prior permission. Further a maximum noise level limit was prescribed.
Varun Priolkar Vs President Noorami Masjid and 3 Ors on 11 Mar 2021Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched
Interesting aspects learnt (for a newbie like me)!!!
Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched_compressedKusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors on 04 Oct 2019
A false DV case is dismissed on merits.
Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors on 04 Oct 2019Here are the written arguments:
Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors Written ArgumentsManish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 2020
A JMFC has ordered for complaint of perjury in this Judgment. Nice one…
From Para 10, 11 and 12,
Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 202010. I have accepted B summary report filed by I.O., in Crime No., 08/2020 registered at Wai police station. On that basis, in present inquiry, I come to the conclusion that informant of said crime has given false FIR at Wai police station as well false statement on oath under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Court of Justice. Therefore, it appears to me that the informant being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, but she has given false FIR as well as false statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. The informant has given statement on oath under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai, inspite of knowledge that the FIR lodged by her is false. Informant has lodged false FIR with intent to cause injury to the present applicant and to Bhisham Parwani, knowing that no just or lawful ground for further proceeding on the basis of that false FIR.
11. Therefore, I record my finding that Criminal Prosecution is required to be initiated against the respondent No. 2 of this application who is informant of Crime No. 08/2020 registered at Wai police station for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has prima facie committed aforesaid offences in relation to B summary proceeding before this Court. It is necessary to make mention here that there is no cogent and convincing material to proceed against respondents No. 3 to 6 for the offences mentioned above.
12. Considering all above grounds, a complaint is required to be filed against the present respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is required to authorise officer of this Court to file a written complaint on behalf of this Court against respondent No. 2 in this Court.
Earlier proceedings here.
State of Telangana Vs Bodusu Naresh Yadav and Ors on 17 Dec 2019
Posting this Conviction judgment only for awareness of the visitors to this site, on the focal point that, how a baseless judgment looks like. Just 24 Pages. Judgment begins around Para 18.
State of Telangana Vs Bodusu Naresh Yadav and Ors on 17 Dec 2019Enjoy !!!
Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016
All the members of the family accused of 498A IPC offence were discharged as there was no material to prosecute them.
Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016There was once a time when copy of complaint in a 498A IPC case was not given to accused, to exercise FIR Quash etc. Had to file RTI application to Police CPIO !!!
CIC_SS_A_2011_002037_M_77848Santhosh alias Sathiyan Vs Priyanka and Ors on 23 Jan 2020
15 Lakhs of Compensation was granted by a City Civil Court on a Compensation Suit, against a False rape case.
Santhosh alias Sathiyan Vs Priyanka and Ors on 23 Jan 2020Vikas Sharma Vs Monica Parashar on 30 Sep 2016
Single Judge declared as follows with regards to the application of Sec 25(2) of PWDV Act 2005 and specifically, what does ‘change in circumstances’ mean.
Vikas Sharma Vs Monica Parashar on 30 Sep 201632. I find no force in the contention of the appellant that merely filing of application under section 25 (2) of the D. V. Act would amount to a change in the circumstances. The phrase “change in circumstances” would require that the circumstances on the basis of which any previous order was passed under this Act have undergone alteration, modification or have ceased to exist and warrant interference of the court. Hence, the contention of the appellant that merely filing an application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act would amount to change in circumstances cannot be accepted. Moreover, if such arguments of the appellant is accepted then parties will take advantage of such interpretation and would intentionally stay away from court on a day when any order is to be passed so that after passing of the order, they would file the application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act and would plead that mere filing of an application under section 25(2) of the D.V. Act is a change in the circumstances thereby warranting passing of orders under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act.
33. A perusal of the application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act filed by the appellant before the trial court shows that in the said application, the appellant has nowhere mentioned that consequent to the passing of the order by which interim maintenance has been fixed, there has been any change in the circumstances which warranted filing the application under section 25(2) of the D. V. Act for modification of the previous order dated 10.04.2015.
