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

2023 Supreme(MP) 219

DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
Shivam @ Shyamsundar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Rajmani Bansal for petitioner; V.P.S. Tomar, Penal Lawyer, for respondents/State.

ORDER

1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants against the order of framing of charges dated 5.12.2022 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge Gwalior in S.T. No.505/2022 whereby the charges under section 195-A, 34 and 506 of IPC have been framed against the applicants.

2. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that inspite of nonavailability of any cogent evidence on record, learned court below has erred in imposing the charge under aforesaid section. As per versions of First Information Report and statements of witnesses, it is clear that the accused persons did not do any act which comes under the purview of section 195-A and 506 of IPC.

3. Counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the entire proceeding is vitiated on account of the legal position as under section 195-A of Cr.P.C. only a complaint can be entertained in respect of an offence committed under section 195-A of IPC. In support of his contention, the counsel has relied upon the order dated 3.8.2018 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision No.3385/2017 (Ratanlal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh) as also the order dat

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