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

1993 Supreme(Raj) 29

M.C.JAIN
Gur Sharan Kaur – Appellant
Versus
State (15) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.S.S. Kharlia, for Petitioner H.R. Panwar, P.P.

Honble CHANDRA, J.—This petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, dated 2.01.1993 by which he refused permission under Section 320 Cr.P.C. for compounding of tenses punishable under Sections 406 and 498A, I.P.C. The facts of the case may be summarised thus: —

(2) F.I.R. No. 91/92 was registered at the police station, Matili Rathan (Sri Ganganagar) under Sections 406 and 498 A., I.P.C. at the instance of the petitioner against her husband Baldeo Singh. After necessary investigation, the police filed challan against her husband Baldeo Singh , father-in-law and mother-in-law under Sections 406 and 498A, I.P.C. in the Court of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. An application under Section 320 Cr.P.C. was moved by the Complainant Gurshankaur for the grant of permission to compound the said offences. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application and refused the permission as the offences were not compoundable.

(3) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a compromise has been effected in between the complainant Gursharan Kaur and her husband Baldev Singh, they are li




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