REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant

V/S

AHMED ADAM MUGAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

THAKUR RAM VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. CHANDRIKA MOHAPATRA [REFERRED TO]
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDER VS. STATE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER KUMAR JAIN MANOHAR LAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. RAM KISHAN ROHTAGT [REFERRED TO]
DHANALAKSHMI VS. R PRASANNA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
SIMRIKHIA VS. DOLLEY MUKHERJEE AND CHHABI MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
CHANDDHAWAN VS. JAWAHARLAL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. B R BAJAJ [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL SINGH VS. DHANRAJI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MOHAMMAD YUSUF NOORMOHAMMED [RELIED ON]
PANDEY AJAY BHUSHAN COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JALGAON VS. SURESHKUMAR BHIKAMCHAND JAIN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat, approaches this Court with the present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for the quashing of four criminal complaints instituted against the respondent No. 3 His Holiness Dr. Syedna Mohmmad Burhanuddin Saheb, claiming to be acting Pro-Bono-Publico.

(2.) Section 482 of the Code runs thus :-

(3.) The four private Criminal Complaints which came to be instituted against the respondent No. 3 are the sequal of what had happened at Bombay. What had happened at Bombay can best be known from the bench judgment of Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mohammed Yusuf Noormohammed and Ors., 1990 Mah. L.J. 813. With a deep sense of gratitude I prefer to borrow the narration of the facts from the said orders.

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AHMED ADAM MUGAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address