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

N.A.BRITTO
Sulochana Vaz – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Shri S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Shri K.B. Surjuse, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard.

2. The petitioners are the accused against whom charge under Section 379 r/w 34 I.P.C. has been ordered to be framed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao.

3. The petitioners having filed a revision against the said Order to the Court of Session, the same came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by Order dated 18.1.2010. The petitioners therefore have now filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside the FIR filed against them so also the orders dated 23.9.2009 and 18.1.2010 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, respectively.

4. The petitioners are the sisters of respondent No.2 who is their only brother. They belong to a family of three sisters and one brother. Maria Judith has initiated inventory proceedings upon the death of their parents by application dated 25.9.1998 and Order dated 29.9.1998 their brother Respondent No.2 was appointed as the Administrator-Cabeca de Casal in the said inventory proceedings, and the fact remains that till date i.e. for over a decade no list of properties have been filed by him in the said inventory proceedings.

5. On 17.4.2008 regarding the incident of plucking of man

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