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

2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 39002

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR
R.PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP THROUGH THE – Respondent


ORDER

(This case has been heard through Video Conference)

The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.11 of 2020, who is facing trial under Section 420 of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, has filed this petition.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.02.2018 at about 11.00 p.m. the marriage engagement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant had taken place. Thereafter, on demand of Innova car as dowry, which lead to stoppage of the marriage. The defacto complainant's family was willing to give a Swift car, but the petitioner is a Police Constable and to his status, he needed only Innova car, which was unable to be given by the defacto complainant's family and hence, the marriage could not be solemnised.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that on perusal of complaint dated 07.07.2020 , it is seen that the complaint has been given nearly two years after the breakage of engagement. Further, the petitioner had already got married one R.Lavanya on 24.06.2020 and the marriage is also registered. After coming to know about the marriage, the complaint was lodged. Further, in the complaint, s

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