Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.29 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 188 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Thota Venkateshwarlu vs State Of A.P.Tr.Princl.Sec.& Anr on 2 September, 2011
19. Next, it has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that before initiating prosecution against the accused on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, previous sanction is necessary inasmuch as the alleged occurrence said to have been committed by the accused both within India and outside the Country. Even in the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (Thota Venkateswaralu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh through Principal Secretary and another ) reported in (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527 relied on by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, it was held that if the offence is alleged to have been committed in India as well as out side the Country, sanction for prosecution is necessary. Though, for framing of charge, sanction is not necessary, before trial such permission has to be obtained by the prosecution.
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 9 November, 2012
24. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is a growing tendency to rope in all the family members in the criminal prosecution relating to materimonial disputes without any material evidence against them and this is one such case. A similar submission was made before the Honourable Supreme Court and the Honourable Supreme Court had an occasion to consider such submission in the case in (Shoraj Singh Ahlawat and others vs. State of U.P. and another) AIR 2013 Supreme Court 52. The Honourable Supreme Court observed that so long as the legal requirement and the settled principles do not permit a discharge, the Court would find it difficult to do much, conceding that legal process at times is abused by unscrupulous litigants especially in matrimonial cases where the tendency has been to involve as many members of the family of the opposite party as possible. While such tendency needs to be curbed, the Court will not be able to speculate whether the allegations made against the accused are true or false at the preliminary stage to be able to direct a discharge. Applying the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above decision to the facts and circumstance of the, this Court is of the view that it is not possible for this Court, at this stage, to examine whether the complaint given by the defacto complainant against the family members are true or false and it shall be tested and examined only at the time of trial.
State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc on 12 April, 1996
20. Next let me analyse as to whether prima facie case is made out in the complaint given by the defacto complainant as well as in the charge sheet filed by the prosecution. For finding out whether a prima facie case is made out by the defacto complainant, at the stage of framing of charge, it is well settled that the probative value or otherwise of the materials on record need not be looked into and the materials produced at this stage has to be accepted as true. This position of law is reiterated by this Court in the decision rendered in (Rathinam vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, SPE.CBI.ACB, Chennai) reported in 2008 1 MLWN Crl.52 following the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa, 1996 SCC (Crl) 820 at 831. In the present case, the sequence of events narrated by the defacto complainant in the complaint relating to the demand and acceptance of dowry, matrimonial cruelty inflicted on her by the accused, the withdrawal of the post graduate course by the defacto complainant at the instance of the accused in the guise of re-union, the "No Contact Order" passed by the American Court against the fifth accused thereby depriving him to have access to the minor child and the receipt of gold jewels with an assurance to return it to the defacto complainant for being used towards the marriage of younger sister of the fifth accused but not returned would only indicate a prima facie case for consideration. The defacto complainant, a Doctor by profesion, has categorically stated in her complaint that one day prior to her marriage with the fifth accused, all the accused came to her house and demanded Rs.50 lakhs as dowry out of which Rs.25 lakhs was paid to the accused on that day. Not content with, according to the defacto complainant, the accused have raised their demand for dowry. These allegations, would indicate that a prima facie case has been made out by the defacto complainant in the complaint given by her. That apart, the prosecution has brought on record the evidence of the witnesses in the form of statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which would clinchingly establish that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused and the validity, correctnes or otherwise of such evidence can only be looked into and examined at the time of trial in the criminal case.
Smt. Vanka Radhamanohari vs Vanke Venkata Reddy And Ors on 20 April, 1990
18. First let me deal with the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners relating to limitation as envisaged under Sections 468 and 469 of Cr.P.C. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the complaint was given by the defacto complainant seven years after the marriage and therefore it is hit by the provisions of Section 468 and 469 of Cr.P.C. In this context, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, when it is a continuing offence and such an offence is committed both within India and outside the Country, the question of limitation does not arise. This position of Law is reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of (Vanka Radhamanohari (Smt) vs. Vanka Venkata Reddy and others) reported in (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 4, wherein it was held that the bar of limitation as enshrined under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. cannot be stretched to or made applicable to matrimonial disputes, where the allegations of cruelty, torture and assault by the husband or other members of the family to the complainant has to be examined on the basis of the complaint given by the wife. I hold that the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners relating to limitation are hereby rejected.