Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Shanti – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated 05.07.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, Camp Sangaria ('revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.94/96 (90/96), whereby while allowing the revision petition filed by accused-respondent No.2-Madan Lal, the order dated 19.01.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangariya ('trial court') in the complaint submitted by complainant/petitioner, was quashed and set aside; vide the said order dated 19.01.1996, the learned trial court, while declining to accept the negative final report submitted before it by the police, took cognizance against accused- respondent No.2-Madan Lal under Sections 465 and 468 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submitted that on 20.11.1995 (as mentioned in the revisional order), a complaint was lodged by complainant/petitioner-Smt. Shanti d/o Late Sultan and Late Ankauri, before the learned trial court. It was mentioned in the said complaint that Sultan, father of the present complainant, was having an agricultural land (kabza kasht) com
The validity of documents, probative value, and admissibility of documents cannot be examined at the stage of framing charges and can be addressed during trial. The defense taken by the accused canno....
Filing simultaneous revisions in different courts on the same matter violates Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. and constitutes misuse of legal process.
The court established that a misunderstanding of legal orders does not constitute the requisite intent for criminal offences under the IPC, particularly in cases involving official duties.
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
Entries in revenue records made fraudulently lack legal validity, and administrative authorities must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure justice.
Criminal proceedings cannot supersede pending civil matters; ongoing civil disputes should not be criminalized unless substantial evidence exists.
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
