Radha Mohan Pandey, Advocate Mr. It is further contended that the question of entrustment, dishonest intention and misappropriation, being question of fact, would be determined during trial on the basis of evidence and ought not to be adjudicated by this Court at this stage when investigation into the cases lodged against the petitioners is going on. A given set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal liability. It is also contended that the impugned FIRs are manifestly attended with malafide and have been instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking 50 Patna High Court Cr. Free for one month and pay only if you like it. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to all the Superintendents of Police of the State of Bihar at their respective official e-mail addresses. Railways by this review application states that there is no post vacant to accommodate Krishna Deo Prasad and, as such, he would have to be reverted.
|License:||For Personal Use Only|
|iPhone 5, 5S resolutions||640×1136|
|iPhone 6, 6S resolutions||750×1334|
|iPhone 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus resolutions||1080×1920|
|Android Mobiles HD resolutions||360×640, 540×960, 720×1280|
|Android Mobiles Full HD resolutions||1080×1920|
|Mobiles HD resolutions||480×800, 768×1280|
|Mobiles QHD, iPhone X resolutions||1440×2560|
|HD resolutions||1280×720, 1366×768, 1600×900, 1920×1080, 2560×1440, Original|
If this argument is to be accepted, then in no case of breach of contract, a criminal prosecution would lie. Sri Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior Counsel in support of first review application draws our sgambhu to various Railway Board circulars with regard to evaluation and reevaluation of departmental answer ,umar. We would, thus, not consider it fit to review our earlier order as no case for review has been made out.
Try out our Premium Member services: Ajeet Kumar, SC- 28 Mr.
Scientific name by Shambhu Kumar Singh – Posted in World Library – SnapWorks
In exercising its jurisdiction under S. Similarly, in Nagawwa’s case suprait was held that the Magistrate while issuing process against accused must satisfy himself kuma to whether the allegation in complaint petition on being proved would ultimately end in the conviction of the accused.
Prasoon Sinha, GA-2 Ms. I also find that the facts nae the case of Joseph Salvaraja Supra are also not identical to the facts of the present case and hence the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in sjambhu case would be of no help to the petitioners of the present case.
Every case has its own peculiar facts. In my view, the law laid by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case cannot be pressed into service to the facts of the present case for the purpose of quashing the FIRs in question. Mishra, GP In Cr. PDistrict- Bhojpur.
This Court would take judicial notice of the fact that the Corporation has sustained loss of multi. The nzme was that respondent no. Lokesh, Advocates In Cr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Cr.
In the aforementioned case, the dispute related to non-payment of bill amount of Rs. According to the second respondent, since money and material requisites were not given to him in time, the work was not completed within the stipulated period.
In the face of said allegations in the FIRs, it cannot be said that the FIRs filed by the corporation are shorn of necessary allegations to prima facie attract the ingredients of criminal breach of trust punishable under Sections and IPC. Interview was taken, but after 14 months of the first batch of interview. Enter valid email id. The aforementioned cases involve more or less identical facts and questions of law.
It would be evident from the pleadings of the parties that there is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners had received paddy from the Corporation and they were required to mill the rice.
The petitioners would be at liberty to raise all the pleas raised in the present writ petitions before the trial Court at the appropriate stage.
Your phone number has been verified! A careful reading of Section IPC shows that a criminal breach of trust involves the following ingredients: Upadhyay, SC- 20 In Cr. On demand, the proprietor of the firm, Sanjay Kumar Sah, handed over 59 cheques, each of which was for an amount of Rs. Mushari Farm, District – Muzaffarpur.
Hence, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in those cases would not apply kkmar the facts of the cases under consideration before this Court. Review Patna High Court C. Free for one month and nqme only if you like it. Rasalanandan Kumar, Advocate Ms. A bare perusal of the allegations made in the FIRs would disclose the existence of disputes which are purely civil in nature, arising from violation of a contract.
There is also no dispute that the petitioners failed to return the contracted quantity of rice. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad In Cr.