Accused No.1 Pragyasingh Chandrapalsingh Thakur @ Swami Purna Chetnanand Giri, No.4 Major Ramesh Shivji Upadhyay, No.5 Sameer Sharad Kulkarni, No.6 Ajay @ Raja Eknath Rahirkar, No.9 Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit, No.10 Sudhakar Udaybhan Dhar Dwivedi @ Swami Amrutanand Dev Tirth and accused No.11 Sudhakar Onkarnath Chatruvedi are hereby discharged from the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. They are also discharged from the offences punishable under section 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as well as offence punishable under section 3, 5 and 25 of Arms Act 1959.
Offence of Murder – In view of sudden fight without any premeditation, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 is not made out. The cause of death of the deceased is knife blow on the chest of the deceased-Soman. Such injury is with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. Thus, the death of Soman is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the death has occurred in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel falling within Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it is an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
M.S. SHERIFF Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS -The criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the Civil and Criminal Courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment – SUPREME COURT 
Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.
(i) Mere delay in Despatch of FIR to magistrate is not a circumstance, which can throw out the prosecution case entirely. [Pala Singh & vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 2679] (ii) The […]
Wherever there is inordinate delay in completing criminal investigation, such delay would provide ground for quashing the FIR
Wherever there is inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation, such delay, ipso facto, would provide ground for quashing the First Information Report or the proceedings […]
Bengal Act 12 of 1932 [20th October, 1932.] An Act to provide for suppressing the terrorist movement in Bengal. Whereas it is expedient to make special provisions for the purpose of suppressing […]
in India where the offence under section 124A of the Penal Code should be construed with reference to the words used in that section. They also added :- “The word ‘sedition’ does […]
Case Laws : (1) Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2) Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand and Another (3) Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT […]
Regulator: The Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) Its headquarter at Nagpur and it has a network of 5 Circle offices, 18 Sub-circle offices, FRDC and Departmental 5 Testing Station. Under its […]