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

SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY
Ahok Kr. Todi – Appellant
Versus
C. B. I. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner in C.R.R. No.1396 of 2011:Mr. Milon Mukjerjee, Mr. Sandipan Ganguly and Mr. S.K. Kapoor, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ayan Bhattarcharjee and Mr. Ayan Chakraborty, Advocates
For the Petitioner in C.R.R. No.1397 of 2011:Mr. Sekhar Basu and Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Ayan Bhattarcharjee and Mr. Ayan Chakraborty, Advocates
For the Petitioner in C.R.R. No.1499 of 2011:Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Ms. Sanchita Chowdhury and Mr. A.I. Khan, Advocates
For the Petitioner in C.R.R. No.1573 of 2011:Mr. Milon Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Biswajit Manna, Advocate
For the C.B.I. Petitioner in C.R.R. No.3512 of 2011:Mr. Ashraf Ali, Advocate
For the Defacto Complainant:Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in C.R.R. No.1494 of 2011:Mr. Rajdip Majumdar, Mr. Kausik Gupta, Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Trivedi and Mr. Sourav Bhagat, Advocates

JUDGMENT

Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.—All these revisional applications arose from the Order No. 57 dated 21.04.2011 in S.C. 103 of 2008 and Order No. 1 dated 21.04.2011 in S.T. 2 (11) passed by the learned Court below. By the impugned orders, the learned Court below dismissed, the applications under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. of the present petitioners of C.R.R. 1396 of 2011 (Ashok Todi vs. CBI), C.R.R. 1397 of 2011 (Pradip Todi vs. CBI), C.R.R. 1549 of 2011 (Anil Saraogi vs. CBI), C.R.R. 1573 of 2011 (Ajay Kumar vs. CBI), C.R.R. 1499 of 2011 (S.M. Mohiuddin @ Pappu vs. CBI), C.R.R. 3512 of 2011 (Sukanti Chakraborty, Krisnendu Das vs. CBI), and thereafter framed charges under Sections 306/120B/506 of I.P.C. against Ashok Todi, Pradip Todi, S.M. Mohiuddin @ Pappu and under Sections 506/120B I.P.C. against Ajay Kumar, Sukanti Chakraborty and Krisnendu Das. The C.B.I as well as Rukbanur Rahaman also challenged the impugned order stating inter alia that the police officials also ought to have been charged under Section 306 of I.P.C. By the consent of the parties, all these revisional applications be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. By way of prefatory observations, I may be permitted

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