Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J
Radhika – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector Of Police G-3, Keelpauk Police Station, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges trial court order on cdr and bank evidence (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners argue lacunae filling and prior failed attempts (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. prosecution justifies documents from charge sheet, fair trial (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court upholds order, dismisses petition (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
Order
The petitioners/A1 to A3 have filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Trial Court, permitting the prosecution to (i) produce the Call Detail Records (CDR) pertaining to Mobile No. 99621 93619 through P.W.15, and (ii) examine the Branch Manager of Karnataka Bank Limited to speak about the letter dated 28.04.2017 issued by the said Bank.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there exists a matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner (A1) and the defacto complainant, who is her husband. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and the defacto complainant returned from Dubai on 22.06.2016, and on the following day, i.e., 23.06.2016, when the defacto complainant, along with his parents and a relative Jaileshkumar, had gone to a restaurant at Orms Road for lunch, he was attacked by certain assailants when he got down from his v
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
