FIR lodged with intention of taking revenge against Wife’s maintenance petition is liable to be quashed: Supreme Court

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

The Supreme Court allowed a petition setting aside the order passed by the Allahabad High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing of proceeding by the bench comprising of N.V Ramana and N.M Shantanagoudan. The appeal was filled by the accused person (Anupriya pal and 4 others) against the judgment and the final order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Allahabad High Court in the application of the accused person seeking quashing of the proceeding and summons dated 3.07.2012 passed by the ACJM Ghaziabad in complaint case no.6714 of 2011

The wife (Appellant) of the Sandeep Pal (Respondent no.2) was in MCA final year and the respondent 2 had completed his MBBS when they were married (though the information given by the appellant that she has qualified M.C.A at the time of marriage was wrongly given). The wife took the admission in an institute to pursue MBA in the state of Madhya Pradesh, but after some time of the marriage, the appellant went back to her parental home due to demand of dowry being placed to her.

On February 2 the Sandeep Pal (Respondent no. 2) was working as an ad-hoc medical officer in the state of Madhya Pradesh, he stayed with the appellant at her parent home and then moved to Uttar Pradesh to continue as a permanent medical officer.

After the birth of the first child the appellant moved in with the respondent no.2 but due to harassment from the side of respondent no. 2 and his family members returned back to her parent’s home. It was stated by the appellant that there was dowry demand by the respondent and compelled the appellant to file a complaint before the family reconciliation centre, the police station at Behul in Madhya Pradesh under section 498A IPC and Protection of women’s from domestic violence act, 2005.

On 03.07.2012 a complaint was lodged by the respondent 2under section 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Court in complaint no.6714 of 2011. The ACJM, Ghaziabad issued a summon for the trial of the accused. The appellants filed a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C before the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. The Supreme Court stated that who had been served noticed remained absent. Thus, an amicus curiae was appointed to argue and assist the court, having learnt from amicus curiae and the appellant lawyer and the state lawyer, we are of the opinion that the complaint lodged by the respondent no. 2 is a counter blast to a number of proceeding lodged by the appellant, though the information was given by the appellant about her being in M.C.A final year at the time of marriage, it cannot be said that appellant had cheated on the respondent no. 2.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -