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

1991 Supreme(MP) 106

B.M.LAL
BAIRO PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
LAXMIBAI PATERIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
SURENDRA SINGH, Z.M.SHAH

B. M. LAL, J.

( 1 ) DAUGHTER-IN-LAW Smt. Laxmi Bai, hereinafter called the non-applicant, has filed a complaint against her father-in-law and mother-in-law, who are the applicants No. 1 Bairo Prasad and No. 2 Smt. Prabha Devi respectively in this revision petition, for taking suitable action against them u/s. 406 of the I. P. C. The said complaint was registered and process u/s. 204 of the Criminal P. C. was issued against the applicants.

( 2 ) THIS revision is filed by the in-laws of the daughter-in-law, non-applicant, on the grounds inter alia : (I) that the complaint u/s. 200, Cr. P. C. as framed and filed, is barred by limitation under the provisions of S. 468, Cr. P. C. (II) that the case is of civil nature; and as such, no cognizance is required by the criminal Court. A third point was also raised though not taken in the memo of revision that a list of witnesses was not furnished along with the copy of the complaint and therefore, the proceedings are vitiated. On these grounds, it is prayed by the applicants that the proceedings of the criminal case No. 344 of 198x pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurai are liable to be quashed.

( 3 ) THESE facts are not di










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