SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(AP) 1270

R.M.BAPAT
Potluri Poorna Chandra Prabhakara Rao – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


R. M. BAPAT, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is the sole accused in C. C. No. 30 of 1997 which is pending on the file of the Special Judge for Cases under scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. There is a checkered history as to how this complaint came into existence.

( 2 ) IT appears from the record that the accused herein had a daughter named usha. One B. Immaniel, husband of the de facto complainant with an intention to marry her, abducted her. She was a married woman. The husband of Usha gave a complaint against the said B. Immaniel, inspector of Police, for abduction of his wife. The case was registered and investigated by C. I. D. Police and they filed the charge-sheet on 6-10-1995 in the Court of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, ongole. The case was numbered as P. R. C. No. 2 of 1996.

( 3 ) IT is further stated in the petition that the de facto complainant in this case and her husband colluded with each other and the de facto complainant executed an agreement in writing in favour of her husband immaniel, who is the sole accused in P. R. C. No. 2 of 1996, agreeing to leave him even if immaniel marries Usha. Therefore, immaniel abducted U







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top