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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 1052

M.E.N.PATRUDU
S. Dhanasekaran – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Police & Another – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:S. Manoharan, Advocate. For the Respondents: ----

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner worked as a Armed Reserve Police Constable. He was placed under suspension by the first respondent on an allegation that a case in Crime No. 3/2003 under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against him.

2. Admittedly, the above case is registered on the basis of the complaint given by his wife, by name Raieswari. After investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the same is numbered as C.C. No. 903 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Madurai. The contents of the Writ Petition further discloses that after the registration of the First Information Report, the petitioner has moved the Honourable High Court, Madras for quashing the entire Criminal proceedings on the ground that there, was no ill-treatment or demand of dowry by him. Before the Honourable High Court, Madras, the de facto complainant who is the victim in the crime appeared and represented that there was no harassment or demanding of dowry. Accordingly in Crl.O.P.No.14896 of 2004 and in Crl.M.P.No.5211 of 2004, the High Court Judicature of Madras passed an order dated 28.6.2004, allowing 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