Back
SUPREME COURT
A. K. Sikri, J
Rini Johar – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' background and transaction details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations against petitioners and arrest circumstances. (Para 4 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of procedural violations in arrest. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. guidelines for lawful arrest and dignity considerations. (Para 15 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. court's conclusions on compensation and quashing the case. (Para 25 , 27 , 29) |
1. The petitioner no. 1 is a doctor and she is presently pursuing higher studies in United States of America (USA). She runs an NGO meant to provide services for South Asian Abused Women in USA. Petitioner no. 2, a septuagenarian lady, is a practicing Advocate in the District Court at Pune for last 36 years. Petitioner no. 1 is associated with M/s. Progen, a US company.
3. The informant visited the petitioner no. 1 at Pune and received a demo of Aura Cam 6000 and being satisfied decided to purchase a lesser price machine i.e. "Twinaura Pro" for a total sum of Rs.2,54,800/-. He paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for which a hand written receipt was given as the proof of payment. During the course of the said meeting, the 8th respondent expressed his desire to purchase a laptop of M/s. Progen of which
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
