G.S.AHLUWALIA
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
1. This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 11/09/2014, passed by Fourth ASJ, Morena in Criminal Revision No. 97/2014, thereby affirming the order dated 16/07/2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena in Crime No. 509/2012, by which the closure report filed by the police was not accepted and the cognizance was taken for offence under Sections 307, 341, 34 of IPC.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the applicant no.3 Rajkumar Sharma had lodged a FIR against the respondent No.2 and three more accused persons to the effect that on 05/10/2012, at 07:30 in the morning when his son Pawan was coming back to his house and the applicant No.3 was following his son, at that time, the respondent No.2 came there and instructed that although the dispute of the applicant No.3 as well as his son Pawan is going on with Amresh Sharma the applicant No.2, but since respondent No.2 has taken over the Cold Store as well as two bigha land from Amresh Sharma, therefore, now the applicant No.3 and his son should not cultivate the said land. When the applicant No.3 Rajkumar Sharma and Pawan replied tha
Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. vs. State of Maharashtra
Charipalli Shankarrao vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
D.P. Gulati, Manager Accounts, M/s. Jeking Infotrain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Joseph Salvaraja Vs. State of Gujrat and others
Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor
Rishipal vs. State Of U.P. & Anr
State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy
Satyavati Ramprasad Ruia vs. New India Assurance Ltd reported in AIR 2017 SC 2596
State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604
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.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.