Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.31 seconds)
(3) Smt. Sumitra Devi Dhawan vs The State on 2 March, 2010 cites

Sanjay Kumar Purohit & Ors vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 15 January, 2009

Therefore, when the learned trial court has analysed the facts and circumstances of the case to arrive at the conclusion whether prima facie case for the offences against all the accused persons is made out or not, but for the irregularity in appreciating that accused Poonam should also have been charged under section 120B IPC the learned trial court has meticulously followed the above dictates of Kans Raj's case (supra and Savitri Devi's case (supra) by discharging the three brother-in-law's and the sisters of accused K.D. Kapoor of several offences alleged against them in the challan. By appreciating the fact that the allegations demand of dowry were made for the first time after about 15 years of marriage between K.D. Kapoor and the aggrieved wife Praveen Kapoor and the page 13 of 14 allegations of demand of dowry harassment or cruelty against other accused persons were not convincing except against accused K.D. Kapoor to charge him alone under section 498A IPC, it is rightly discharged the accused persons under section 406 IPC, 506 IPC 406 IPC by, 327 IPC by giving cogent reasons. The learned trial court has rightly charged accused K.D. Kapoor for the offences under section 494/498A/120B IPC and his three sisters for the offence under section 120 B IPC. It appears to have rightly discharged the other accused persons for the alleged offences except accused Poonam who should also have been charged under section 120B IPC along with three sisters of accused K.D. Kapoor.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 4 - Cited by 1827 - P C Tatia - Full Document
1   2 3 Next