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

C.L.PANGARKAR
Rohit Vedpaul Kaushal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Shri K.R. Trivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri R.M. Daga & M.P. Khajanchi, Advocates.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C.L. Pangarkar, J.—Rule. Returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally with consent of parties.

3. This is an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash F.I.R. registered by the police at Chandrapur.

4. Few facts may be narrated as follows:

Applicant is a student of 1st year MBA at Sikkim Manipal University in Himachal Pradesh. The applicant and non-applicant’s daughter were studying at a school at Barmana together. They fell in love and used to meet each other frequently. They also continuously used to talk with each other on phone. The non-applicant No. 3’s daughter Bhumika later sought admission in Dental College and was studying and staying at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh. She however used to visit the house of the applicant and even used to stay over night regularly. It is alleged that on 5.11.2005 the applicant and the daughter of the non-applicant No. 3 got married. The non-applicant No. 3 came to know of the marriage. He took away his daughter and she is now living with non-applicant No. 3. Since the non-applicant No. 3 was totally against the marriage, he never left any opportunity to harass the applicant. Upon the report submitted by t

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