Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 3]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Manoj Kumar vs Champa Devi on 6 April, 2017

Bench: Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

     SLP(Crl.)No.10137/15                                 1

     ITEM NO.7                                 COURT NO.1                       SECTION IIC

                                   S U P R E M E C O U R T O F           I N D I A
                                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

     Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10137/2015

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09/04/2015
     in CRMMO No.230/2014 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh
     at Shimla)

     MANOJ KUMAR                                                                Petitioner(s)

                                                         VERSUS

     CHAMPA DEVI                                                                Respondent(s)

     (With interim relief and office report)

     Date : 06/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :
                             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                             HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

     For Petitioner(s)                    Ms.Nisha Priya Bhatia, Adv.
                                          Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)                    Mr. Anil Nag, Adv.
                                          Mr.Arun Singh, Adv.

                         Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                            O R D E R

1. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at some length.

2. Having perused the impugned order, we are satisfied, that the same is based on the two decisions rendered by this Court, firstly, Vanamala (Smt) vs. H.M.Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299, and secondly, Rohtash Singh vs. Ramendri (Smt) and others, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 2000(3) SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2017.04.07 17:20:00 TLT SCC 952. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Reason: including the explanation under sub-section (1) thereof, has been consistently interpreted by this Court, for the last two decades. SLP(Crl.)No.10137/15 2 The aforesaid consistent view has been followed by the High Court while passing the impugned order.

3. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no justification whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV)                                  (RENUKA SADANA)
     AR-CUM-PS                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR