Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.72 seconds)

Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014

Petitioner has appeared in the witness box during trial as PW1. A perusal of the cross-examination of the petitioner reveals that Nidhi has already filed a case against her husband under Section 125 Cr. P.C. claiming maintenance in the year 2009-2010. Thus, the relations between the deceased and his wife were not cordial for about more than three years prior to the lodging of the FIR. It MAHAVIR SINGH appears that due to the strained relations, the complainant 2015.01.23 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.202 of 2015 5 moved application for summoning Nidhi wife of the deceased, Neelam Rani mother-in-law of Parmod Kumar, Sunny brother-in-law of Parmod Kumar and Charanjit Sehgal father- in-law of Parmod Kumar to face the trial as additional accused. The said persons were found innocent during investigation. Learned trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, had rightly held that there was no substantial evidence on record to show the involvement of the persons now sought to be summoned as additional accused in the alleged crime. There is no quarrel with the preposition of law settled by the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh's case (supra), but the same fails to advance the case of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 114 - Cited by 1591 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1