Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Mahesh R. , S/o Late K. N. Raghunath Singh – Appellant
Versus
K. Poornima W/o Mahesh R. – Respondent
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.164 of 2018 arising out of P.C.R.No.13 of 2016 filed by the respondent under Section 200 of the CrPC alleging offences under Sections 498A, 494, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri D. C. Srinivasa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Arun Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The respondent is the complainant, the wife of the petitioner, accused No.1. The two get married on 18-11-1991. From the wedlock, a daughter is born. On 30-09-1992 the wife alleges harassment on demand of dowry and also alleges that she was pushed out of the matrimonial house and since then the couple have been living separately. The husband files a petition before the Family Court in M.C.No.104 of 1992 seeking annulment of marriage. In the year 1998, M.C.No.104 of 1992 comes to be re- numbered as M.C.No.2 of 1998 and on merits it comes to be dismissed. Thereafter, two petitions emerge one for restitution of conjugal rights and the other for maintenance by the wife. She also places on record that the husband has allegedly married for the second time durin
Withdrawal of a complaint does not equate to acquittal under Section 257 of the CrPC for non-summons offences, emphasizing the necessity of jurisdiction and proper cognizance.
The withdrawal of a complaint amounts to acquittal of the accused, and a second complaint on the same facts and cause of action is not maintainable. The revisional court's power is limited to procedu....
The Magistrate must conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before issuing summons if the accused resides outside its jurisdiction, as this is mandatory to prevent harassment through false co....
Procedural irregularities during the committal of accused to the Sessions Court invalidate the order if accused are deprived of their right to present evidence.
Cognizance under Section 188 I.P.C. is invalid without a public servant's complaint, rendering related proceedings void.
Cognizance for contempt must be taken by the court where original proceedings are pending; failure to do so violates the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the same offence multiple times once it has been committed to the Sessions Court, affirming that further cognizance without proper cause is legally impermissibl....
The State cannot allow victims to file complaints on the same facts after withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 Cr.P.C.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
