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

2000 Supreme(MP) 673

MAITHLI SHARAN
Pappu – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Sanjay Gupta for petitioners;
Government Advocate for respondent.

ORDER

1. This is a petition under Section 482. CrPC, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

2. The brief relevant facts leading to the tiling of the instant petition are thus : Police Chanderi filed a charge sheet in the Court of the concerned Magistrate for the offences under sections 457, 380, and 411, IPC against nine persons, out of whom the petitioners and one Suresh Kumar were shown as absconding The learned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 28/7/99 took cognizance of the case and ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners. The petitioners have approached this Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482, CrPC, with the allegation that factually there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect them with the crimes in question, and the only evidence lurking in the charge-sheet against them is contained in a confessional statement u/s 27 of the Indian evidence Act made by one of the co-accused Tahir Ali. On this basis it has been prayed that the proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate be quashed as against the petitioners.

3. I have heard the learned counsel on both the sides and have carefully gone





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