Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.70 seconds)

M.Mohan vs State Tr.Dy.Supdt.Of Police on 1 March, 2011

In M. Mohan (supra) A-3 was stated to have told Kamatchi (victim) that “if you want to go by a car, you have to bring a car from 1 (2005)2 SCC 659 2 (2011)3 SCC 626 3 (2015)9 SCC 639 Crl. Appeal No. ……….of 2018(Arising 7 out of SLP(Crl.)No.7933/2018) your family”, whereupon said Kamatchi, her husband and the child were required to take public transport. Few days thereafter the victim committed suicide. After filing of the charge-sheet A-3 was summoned under Sections 304B, 498A and 306 IPC. In proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed the charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC but held that the accused had to face trial for the offence under Section 306 IPC, which view was under
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 491 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Netai Dutta vs State Of West Bengal on 28 February, 2005

In Netai Dutta (supra) the suicide note had alleged that Netai Dutta had engaged the victim in several wrong doings; that the victim was required to be at the workplace during the day and night on certain occasions; and that though he had reported the fact that he could leave the workplace only by 8 o’ clock in the evening when all the restaurants were closed nothing was done by said Netai Dutta.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 277 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1