IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Juvvadi Sridevi
Shailesh Kumar Gujjar – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and allegations (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defense claims innocence and mischaracterization of loans (Para 5) |
| 3. arguments supporting prosecution's view (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. evaluation of evidence regarding financial instruments (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. impact of civil suits on criminal proceedings (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. legal standards distinguishing civil and criminal liability (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. conclusion on the nature of legal proceedings (Para 17 , 18) |
| 8. final ruling to quash the proceedings (Para 19) |
ORDER :
Juvvadi Sridevi, J.
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.18 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned Special Court under the TELANGANA PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS OF FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT - cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) and Section 5 of the TELANGANA PROTECTION OF DEPOSITORS OF FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT , 1999 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).
2. Heard Mr. P. Pratap, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand
S.W.Palanitkar and others v. State of Bihar and another
Union of India v. Margadarshi Chit Funds (P) Limited
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.