SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

ALOK VERMA
Shankar Kumar Thakurta – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:J.N. Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondent:R.N. Yadav, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Alok Verma, J.—By this common order Criminal Revision Nos. 284/2014 and 619/2014 are being disposed of, as the both arise from the same impugned order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Anuppur in S.T. No. 75/2010 on 27/01/2014.

2. The relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that the accused Sujit Mishra filed an application under section 319 (1) and 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge praying thereby to summon Dilip Jagwani and Bikki Jagwani as accused in the case. The Session trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was related to the land survey No. 58/3 (ka) area 0.57 acre, village Samatpur, District Anuppur. It was alleged that by a forged document. said land was sold by one Nirmala Goyanka to Shanti Jagwani and Leela Jagwani. In the documents Dilip Jagwani and Bikki Jagwani signed as attesting witness. Learned Additional Sessions Judge placing the reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2013 SC 3018: 2013(5) Supreme 553: 2013(3) Crimes 356. found that Session Court can take cognizance against any person

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top