Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
Smt. A – Appellant
Versus
The State (NCT Govt. of Delhi) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed alleging criminal intimidation. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. lower courts found insufficient evidence to uphold charges. (Para 4 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. procedural history of the appellate process (Para 5 , 7 , 16) |
| 4. arguments regarding the discharge orders (Para 9 , 11 , 19) |
| 5. intent must be shown for charges under ipc. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 6. delay affects credibility of claims. (Para 39 , 49 , 51) |
| 7. legal rationale concerning criminal intimidation and modesty insults (Para 40 , 44) |
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that the accused was terminated from service due to his bad habits. On 22.06.2008, she along with her sister at around 9:00 PM., was walking in the park, when the accused, Rajan Khurana along with his wife Sanjeevan Prakash, came and started abusing and using unparliamentary language, against them. It is alleged that the accused in a loud tone, claimed that he was a “gunda” having links with gunda elements and threatened to kill her and her husband. The Petitioner and her family members have been living under constant threat and fear from the Accused/Respondent No.2.
3. Petitioner lodged a Complaint against Respondent No.2 at P.S.
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
