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

1991 Supreme(Raj) 62

B.R.ARORA
Banshi Lal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Vijay Bishnoi, for Petitioners H. S. S. Kharlia, for Respondent No. 2 V. R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor.

B.R. ARORA, J.—This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated May 26,1989, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners.

2. Chandu Mal filed a complaint against Banshi Lal, Ram Chandra and Smt. Kali under Section 498 I.P.C. in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, on the allegations made in the complaint. The learned Magistrate sent this complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Suratgarh, for investigation. The police, after necessary investigation, submitted the Final Report in the matter. After receipt of the Final Report, notice was given to the complainant and the complainant filed a protest petition. The learned Magistrate thereafter, after considering the Final Report and the evidence collected by the police during investigation, took cognizance against the petitioners under Section 498 IPC. and issued processes. Dissatisfied with the order dated February 5, 1988, passed by the learned Magistrate, taking cognizance against the petitioners, the petitioners preferred



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