Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
Chandan Prasad Mahato, S/o. Late Gora Chand Mahato – Appellant
Versus
Dharma Prakash Shah, S/o. Sri Bhrigu Nath Shah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of allegations against petitioner. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural history of the case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments by petitioner concerning trial court's cognizance. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. responses from respondent's counsel to challenge petitioner's claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's analysis and evaluation of evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. conclusion and dismissal of the petition. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Kechii, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. L.K. Borah, the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Chandan Prasad Mahato impugning the order dated 21.12.2017, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in C.R. Case No. 634c/2016, whereby the said Court took cognizance of offence under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 against the present petitioner and issued processes to him.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
