T.S.THAKUR, GYAN SUDHA MISRA
GEETA MEHROTRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content you'd like me to analyze, and I will generate the key points with appropriate references as specified.
JUDGMENT
Gyan Sudha Misra, J.-This appeal by special leave in which we granted leave has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Miscellaneous Application No.22714/2007 whereby the High Court had been pleased to dispose of the application moved by the appellants under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance against the appellants under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act with an observation that the question of territorial jurisdiction cannot be properly decided by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for want of adequate facts. It was, therefore, left open to the appellants to move the trial court for dropping the proceedings on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court however granted interim protection to the appellants by directing the authorities not to issue coercive process against the appellants until disposal of the application filed by the appellants with a further direction to the trial court to dispose of the application if moved by the appellants, within a period of two months from
Ramesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2005) SCC (Crl.) 735
G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693
Surendra Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 153: This case is positively cited by the Supreme Court in *Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P.* ("It is held by the Supreme court in Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. Geeta Mehrotra (supra) as under:-"), indicating it has been followed or relied upon in subsequent decisions, including a reference to *2025 SCC Online SC 1029, Geeta Devi and another V.*.
Ramesh VS State Of T. N. - 2005 2 Supreme 381: Describes a successful application of legal principle where proceedings were quashed based on specific facts ("proceedings were liable to be quashed against her"), suggesting the case illustrates a followed or binding outcome without negative treatment indicators.
G. V. Rao VS L. H. V. Prasad - 2000 2 Supreme 165: Articulates a legal principle under Section 415 IPC that has been stated as authoritative ("To attract Section 415 of IPC it is not always necessary... would amount to cheating"), indicating positive treatment as a cited precedent without any negative indicators.
Surendra Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(All) 153: Treatment is partially ambiguous due to the truncated citation ("Geeta Mehrotra (supra) as under:- "25. ... State of Punjab and another ; 2025 SCC Online SC 1029, Geeta Devi and another V."). While it clearly shows positive citation by the Supreme Court, the incomplete excerpt and reference to another case (*Geeta Devi*) make the full context unclear; categorized as positive_citation based on explicit "held by the Supreme court" language.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.