REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

K.MURALIDHAR Appellant

V/S

KISHOREKUMAR P.JAIN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

K. VENKATARATNAM V. CHAIRMAN,A. P. HOUSING BOARD []
MAJOR K. MATHEWS V. J. RAJA KALIFULLA []
DEEPTI ALIAS ARATI RAJ V. AKHIL RAJ []
KUNHAMMED HAJI V. AMINA []
VENKA RAJULU V. SINGUPALLI SOMUNAIDU []
FRANCIS XAVIER V. NEELAMEGAM []
CHAJU RAM VS. RADHEY SHYAM []
SANTOKH SINGH VS. IZHAR HUSSAIN [REFERRED TO]
MADHU LIMAYE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA []
K KARUNAKARAN VS. T V EACHARA WARRTER []
CHIEF JUSTICE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. L V A DIXITULU:V V S KRISHNAMURTHY []
LALIT MOHAN MONDAL VS. BENOYENDRA NATH CHATTERJEE []
LT COL PRITHI PAL SINGH BEDI CAPT DHARAM PAL KUKRETY GAPT CHANDER KUMAR CHOPRA VS. UNION OF INDIA []
RAJAN KUMAR MACHANANDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
SIMRIKHIA VS. DOLLEY MUKHERJEE AND CHHABI MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
NELSON MOTIS VS. UNION OF INDIA []
DHARAMPAL VS. RAMSHRI []
K NARAYANASWAMI REDDIAR VS. T KOLANDAIVELU CHETTIAR []
H C GANTI VS. FLHARCOURT []

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important question of law, that too, of general importance is raised in these revisions. The question is this:

(2.) THE petitioner Muralidhar was an accused in C.C. No.1883 of 1986, on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, in the case filed by the police for the offences under Secs.406 and 420, I.P.C., on the complaint of the 1st respondent Kishore Kumar P.Jain. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted on 3.3.1989. THEn he filed petitions in Crl.M.P. Nos. 184 to 186 of 1990, on 16.2.1990, under Sec.340, Crl.P.C., requesting the court to exercise its powers under Sec.195, Crl.P.C, to present a complaint in writing to anyone of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, in Madras, for taking cognizance of the offences under Sec.211 read with 120-B, I.P.C, against the respondents alleging that the 1st respondent Kishore Kumar P. Jain, in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched with the other respondents gave a complaint, with the false charge of offence made with intent to injure the petitioner before the trial court in C.C. No.1883 of 1986, which ended in acquittal.

(3.) THE grounds of dismissal as narrated both by the lower court and the appellate court, could be stated as follows:

Click here to view full judgment.

K MURALIDHAR Vs. KISHORE KUMAR P JAIN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address