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

2001 Supreme(Raj) 394

R.R.YADAV
RAM SWAROOP – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Harendra Sinsinwar, RAJENDRA YADAV, RAM SVARUP, SATYAVEER SINGH, SHARDA

Judgment


R. R. YADAV, J.

( 1 ) - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Satyaveer Singh, learned counsel appearing for non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sharda wife of the petitioner. He has filed his Vakalatnama in Court which may be placed on record.

( 2 ) MR. Ramswaroop, petitioner (husband) as well as non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sharda (wife) who are present in person before this Court are identified by their counsel. The petitioner is identified by Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Advocate and non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sharda is identified by Mr. Satyaveer Singh, Advocate.

( 3 ) FROM the perusal of the material placed before me and also from the order passed by the learned Magistrate, it is borne out that non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sharda has lodged FIR No. 198/99 against her husband petitioner upon which, the challan was filed before the learned Magistrate and when the statement of non-petitioner No. 2 was to be recorded then the petitioner husband entered into a compromise with non-petitioner No. 2. Non-petitioner No. 2 stated before the learned Magistrate that She does not want to press her complaint against her husband Ramswaroop. The







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