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

2008 Supreme(All) 1741

A.K.ROOPANWAL
MOHD. NASEEM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
P.K. Yadav for the Revisionist; D.S. Parmar and A.G.A. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble A.K. Roopanwal, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 11.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 4, Hamirpur, in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 1999, Khalida v. Naseem and another whereby the order dated 15.10.1998 passed by the C.J.M. Hamirpur, in Case No. 151 of 1989, Khalida v. Naseem and another, was set aside.

2. It appears from the record that O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint against the revisionist alleging therein that he by practicing fraud upon her solemnized the marriage. At the time of the marriage with her, he was already married and was having Smt. Shaila Rani as his wife. In support of the allegations of the complaint she examined herself and her father. On their statements the revisionist was summoned. The case went up to the stage of Section 244, Cr. P.C. At that stage also she examined herself and her father. At this stage the trial Court found that no case under Sections 495, 420, 498A, I.P.C. is made out as there is no evidence to constitute these offences against the revisionist. The trial Court discharged the revisionist vide order dated 15.10.1998. Against this discharge a revision was filed by O.P. No. 2 before the Ses










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