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

2005 Supreme(Del) 634

MANJU GOEL
MALKIAT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Bhim Sen Sehgal, O.P.SAXENA, R.K.MAHESHWARI, SUMEET MEHTA

Manju Goel, J.

( 1 ) -THE petition seeks quashment of proceedings before the crime Against Women Cell, North East District in case No. V-2 arising out of the complaint of the respondent No. 2 Smt. Virender Kaur. The proceedings before the Crime Against Women Cell culminated into an FIR and thereafter into a charge-sheet. Accordingly, the; Court now has to consider whether the fir and the charge-sheet can be quashed.

( 2 ) THE grounds for making the prayer are precisely two namely- (1) No part of the alleged offence took place in Delhi and therefore neither the Delhi police nor the Delhi Courts can have jurisdiction in the matter; (2) For the same offence an FIR was registered earlier which was compromised between the parties and therefore the new complaint/fir/charge sheet cannot be maintainable.

( 3 ) I take the second objection first as it relates entirely to fact. The comp a int as is available in the FIR bearing No. 249/. 2002 dated 25. 4. 2002 Police station Rohini can be restated in brief as under: the respondent No. 2 married the petitioner on 13. 12. 93. Three months after the marriage, the husband and other members of the family namely the present petitioners started taunt


















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