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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 18910

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Yadav And Anr. – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Jitendra Verma,A.G.

ORDER

The present Revision is filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 19/1/2014 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Case No.443/12 whereby the application filed by the applicants under Section 216 of Cr.P.C for alter of the charge has been rejected.

2. According to the prosecution story, a complaint is made by complainant namely Kaishav s/o Chedilal Bansal against the present applicants and on the basis of which, FIR was lodged against them. It is alleged that present applicants entered into an agreement to sell the land bearing plot numbers 33, 34, 573, 574 admeasuring 5000 sq. feet situated at village Nainod Tehsil and District Indore.

3 . Counsel for the applicant submits that the Trial Court erred while rejecting the application for alter of the charge under Section 216 of Cr.P.C on the ground that once the charges have already been framed under Section 420, 467 of IPC. The Court cannot alter the charge. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347 an

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