Back
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Shanti Swaroop – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marriage and birth registration. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. investigation process outlined. (Para 3) |
| 3. challenges to fir legality. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. submission and counter-submissions during the hearing. (Para 5) |
| 5. counterarguments on investigation validity. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. court observations on the jurisdiction and standard of evidence. (Para 9 , 14 , 16) |
| 7. principles of quashing charges under section 482. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 8. judicial reasoning on jurisdiction issues. (Para 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 9. legal standards regarding quashing of firs and evidence requirements. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. definition and conditions of forgery. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 11. violation of criminal intimidation and legal standards. (Para 30 , 37 , 40) |
| 12. conclusion on quashing the fir. (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Respondent No.2 (informant) made a complaint to the police that he was married to petitioner No.3 on 8.3.2011. One son, Anyun Sharma was born to the parties on 22.10.2016 in a private hospital. The informant came to know after the birth of his son that the parents of Umang Sharma (wife of the petitioner) had mentioned that a girl Mish
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
