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

1991 Supreme(Guj) 297

S.M.SONI
RAXABEHN WF. /of PRAVINBHAI BHAILALBHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.S.PATEL, JAYESH V.BAIRAVIA, M.A.BUKHARI, RANJAN B.PATEL

S. M. SONI, J.

( 1 ) APPLICANTS-ACCUSED in M. Case No. 40/91 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No. 3 at Vadodara have filed this petition to quash and set aside the order of enquiry dated 11-4-1991 directed by him under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Code for short ). The order or enquiry is challenged on the ground that the Learned Magistrate ought not to have been taken the cognizance under Section 494 of the Code as the complainant is not the husband of accused No. 1 in the complaint and offence under Section 406 and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (I. P. C. for short) cannot go together as in the one there is an element of wilful entrustment while in the other there is an element of purposeful deprivation of the property.

( 2 ) FEW facts to appreciate these contentions of challenge are as under:respondent No. 3-original complainant (hereinafter be referred to as the complainant) as a power of attorney holder of one Navinchandra Gordhanbhai Patel-husband (hereinafter referred to as husband) of applicant No. 1-accused No. 1 filed a complaint against the applicants-accused (hereinafter be referred as accused) under Sections 420 406 49










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