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

2012 Supreme(Del) 2760

MUKTA GUPTA
Rakesh Chandra Arya – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
Through:Mr. Sanjib Kandayatray, Advocate.
Through:Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the state. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

JUDGMENT :

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Learned Trial Court dated 18th July, 2011 whereby charge for offence under Section 498A/34 IPC has been framed against all the Petitioners and in addition charge under Section 315/34 IPC has been framed against Petitioners Tarun Chandra and Pushpa, the husband and sister-in-law of the complainant.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that on the allegations as set out in the FIR and on the basis of MLC, no case for charge under Section 315/34 IPC is made out against the Petitioners Tarun Chandra and Pushpa. The complainant was suffering from Hypothyroidism which resulted in abortion. The miscarriage took place when the complainant was at her parents place much after she had left the matrimonial home. The Doctor has been examined as PW-1 who has stated that the injures mentioned in the MLC are not sufficient for termination of pregnancy. As regards offence under Section 498A/34 IPC, it is alleged that all members of the family have been implicated without any specific role being assigned to them. On the allegations in the FIR, no charge under Section 498A/34 IPC can be made out. Reliance in this r







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