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

CHAWAN PRAKASH
Man Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties
For the Revisionists: Phool Singh Yadav, Vaibhav Yadav, Counsel
For the Opposite Party: Dev Raj Singh, G.A., Counsel

JUDGMENT

Chawan Prakash, J.—Heard Sri Phool Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Dev Raj Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No. 1, Kaushambi, in S.T. No. 74 of 2020 (State Vs. Manoj Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2020, under Sections 498A, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mohabbatpur Painsa, District Kaushambi whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of the daughter of the informant namely Radhika was solemnized with Manoj about five years ago according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and after marriage, husband Manoj, father-in-law Bhaiya Lal, mother-in-law and Dewar Ashok Kumar started demanding a buffalo and golden ring as additional dowry and harassing his daughter. Manoj had illicit relations with Sunita, sister-in-law. One month before the incident, Sunita and Manoj were called by the informant. On 07.01.2020 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