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

2010 Supreme(Pat) 324

RAKESH KUMAR
Dinanath Kumar @ Dinanath Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

1. Heard Mr.Raju Giri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Maya Nand Jha, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.7.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Motihari in Trial No.2494 of 2007, arising out of Sugauli P.S. Case No.140/04. By the said order, the learned Court below has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing this petition submitted that the present case was instituted maliciously by the informant. He refers annexure-2 to the petition and submits that earlier also the informant had filed a complaint case and in that complaint case, a compromise petition was filed and ultimately the case was compromised. He further submits that the Honble Supreme Court has already made it clear that in a case instituted under Section 498-A, if it is brought on record such complaint which was filed maliciously, then this Court is fully empowered under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such proceeding.

4. I have perused the impugned order, i.e. the order dated 20.7.2007, wh



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