B. K. SHRIVASTAVA
Vinod Raghuvanshi – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
B.K. Shrivastava, J. - This order shall govern the disposal of Interim application No. 1181 of 2020 filed by Respondent No. 2 Shri Ajay Arora [Referred as "Respondent"] U/s 340 r/w 195 of Cr.P.C. on 17.01.2020 for the following relief :-
"It is therefore prayed that this Honorable Court, may kindly be pleased to allow the instant application and conduct a detailed enquiry with respect to the Sections 205, 206, 209, 463, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the Applicant and thereafter proceed as per the provisions of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the interest of Justice."
2. Petitioner Shri Vinod Raghuwanshi (refereed as "Petitioner") has filed the instant petition No. 38669 of 2019 on 12.09.2019 under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 18/07/2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in RT No.5442 of 2008 whereby the court has prima facie found that offence under section 420 and 120-B are made out against the Petitioner and passed the order to frame the charges accordingly. The Petitioner has further assailed order dated 29/08/2019 passed by First Additional Judge
Chandrapal Singh vs. Maharaj Singh
Har Gobind vs. State of Haryana
Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another
K. Karunakaran Appellant vs. T. V. Eachara Warrier and another
K.T.M.S. Mohd. vs. Union of India
Kamalvasini Radheshyam Agrawal Vs. R.D. Agrawal
Laxminarayan Deepak Ranjan Das Appellant vs. K. K. Jha and others
M. S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana
Patel Laljibhai Somabhai Appellant vs. The State of Gujarat
Prem Sagar Manocha vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Pritish vs. State of Maharashtra
Sachida Nand Singh and another Vs. State of Bihar and another
Sardul Singh Petitioner vs. State of Haryana
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.
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.