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

1997 Supreme(Guj) 383

N.J.PANDYA
MITESHCHANDRA MANILAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.D.SHAH, ARUN H.MEHTA, D.N.Patel, K.B.ANANDJIVALA, K.K.NAYAR

N. J. PANDYA, J.

( 1 ) IN all these petitions, the question involved is revolving around the events that took place in Dakor Court, District Kheda. It was reported in newspaper and later on substantiated that in the said Court, warrants are being issued against anyone and everyone, just for asking and all that has to be done is to file a complaint of whatsoever nature.

( 2 ) THE events involving the Presiding Officer of Dakor Court is referred to in the aforesaid brief manner because, as a fall out of what happened in Dakor Court, there came to be filed a complaint against persons involved in some of the complaints in different police stations alleging offences under Secs. 120b, 181, 182, 205, 211, 465, 468 and 469 all of Indian Penal Code. In first of the aforesaid matters, namely, cri. M. A. No. 5722 of 1994, a complaint came to be registered for the aforesaid offences at Dakor Police Station, as Crime Register No. I 211 of 1994. The offence was registered under the instructions of the Senior Police Sub-Inspector of Dakor and an intimation to that effect was sent to Dakor Court. Later on, the learned magistrate of the Court was informed that, during investigation offence under Sec
























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