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

2023 Supreme(Ori) 188

G. SATAPATHY
Bineet Kumar Patel – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. H.S.Mishra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R.B.Mishra, AGA and Mr. S.Kanungo, Advocate, for the Respondent-State

JUDGMENT

G. Satapathy, J.

The application by the petitioners U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. impugns the order passed on 29.01.2010 by the learned J.M.F.C., Loisingha in G.R. Case No. 125 of 2009 taking cognizance of offences U/Ss. 376/417/506/34 of the IPC or alternatively for the offence U/S. 376 of the IPC.

2. The short background facts are, on 07.08.2009 at about 11.45 AM, OP No.2 lodged a FIR against the petitioners before the J.M.FC. Loisingha P.S. alleging therein that on the allurement of marriage, petitioner No.1 had been keeping physical relationship with her for since last six months and as a consequence thereof, when she became pregnant of two months, the petitioner No.1 is deceiving her and petitioner No.2 had been threatening to kill her if she disclose the incident.

On receipt of such FIR, Loisingha P.S. Case No. 125 of 2009 was registered U/Ss. 376/506/34 of the IPC which was investigated into resulting submission of charge sheet against the petitioners for offence U/Ss. 417/506/34 of the IPC, but not withstanding to the submission of charge sheet of aforesaid offences, the learned J.M.F.C., Loisingha by way of a detailed order took cognizance of offence U/Ss. 376/417/506/34 of 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