Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)
Criminal Revision, 1015
of 2015, Judgment Date: Oct 24, 2017
Full Judgment
Delhi High Court (Single Judge)
CRL.M.C., 1229
of 2016, Judgment Date: Oct 17, 2017
Full Judgment
Delhi High Court (Single Judge)
W.P.(CRL), 575
of 2016, Judgment Date: Oct 17, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 1723
of 2017, Judgment Date: Oct 04, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 1723
of 2017, Judgment Date: Oct 04, 2017
Full Judgment
Allahabad High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION, 11665
of 2017, Judgment Date: Sep 05, 2017
Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)
Criminal Revision, 692
of 2017, Judgment Date: Aug 24, 2017
Law Laid Down -
Framing of charge precisely mentioning the offence which in specific terms prescribes punishment for the same and not any other generic or approximate offence which may in generic terms prescribe punishment for the offence alleged. Charge framed u/S 409 IPC does not relate to breach of trust by a warehouse keeper, which offence is exclusively punishable u/s 407 IPC. Thus, charge for breach of trust by warehouse keeper framed u/S 409 IPC is not sustainable. The trial Court directed to Full Judgment
Delhi High Court (Single Judge)
CRL.M.C., 1949
of 2017, Judgment Date: Aug 23, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 1367
of 2017, Judgment Date: Aug 18, 2017
Full Judgment
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 1261-1262
of 2017, Judgment Date: Aug 01, 2017
While the bar against cognizance of a specified offence is mandatory, the same has to be understood in the context of the purpose for which such a bar is created. The bar is not intended to take away remedy against a crime but only to protect an innocent person against false or frivolous proceedings by a private person. The expression “the public servant or his administrative superior” cannot exclude the High Court. It is clearly implicit in the direction of Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
MISC. CRL, 7202
of 2017, Judgment Date: Aug 01, 2017
Full Judgment
Gauhati High Court (Single Judge)
Crl. Pet., 987
of 2014, Judgment Date: Jul 21, 2017
Full Judgment
Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)
APPLICATION U/s 378, 4427
of 2017, Judgment Date: Jul 18, 2017
Full Judgment
Gauhati High Court (Single Judge)
Crl. Pet., 890
of 2014, Judgment Date: Jul 13, 2017
Full Judgment
Gauhati High Court (Single Judge)
Crl. Pet., 810
of 2014, Judgment Date: Jul 13, 2017
Full Judgment
Gauhati High Court (Single Judge)
CRIMINAL APPEAL, 32
of 2007, Judgment Date: Jul 13, 2017
Full Judgment
Bombay High Court (Single Judge)
CRIMINAL APPEAL, 449
of 2001, Judgment Date: Jul 07, 2017
Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)
CRR, 07
of 2012, Judgment Date: Jun 21, 2017
Full Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)
MCRC, 1367
of 2017, Judgment Date: Jun 20, 2017
Full Judgment
Allahabad High Court (Single Judge)
APPLICATION U/s 482, 18665
of 2017, Judgment Date: Jun 16, 2017
Full Judgment
