SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Muskan – Appellant
Versus
Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 19.07.2024 in Misc. Criminal Case No.10695 of 2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore wherein the High Court has quashed the proceedings emanating from FIR No. 35 of 2024 dated 28.01.2024 registered at Police Station Alot, District Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 18601[“IPC”] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against private respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein.
3. At the outset, it will be pertinent to mention that respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein have not entered appearance in the present case and vide order dated 28.03.2025, this Court appointed Mr. Prakhar Srivastava, learned counsel, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court (Pro Bono) on behalf of the unrepresented respondents.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
4. Brief facts of the present matter are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 20.11.2020 in accordance with Muslim traditions and customs. From the marriage, a son was born. During the initial days of the marriage, the appellant was treated well by respondent No.
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others
State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Mahmood Ali and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Digambar and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and Another
Daxaben v. State of Gujarat and Others
State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.