Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Monju Roy & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 17 April, 2015
9. It is also contended that the complainant lodged a report
before the Superintendent of Police, Sagar alleging that she was
7 months pregnant at the time of the death of her husband.
Later, she gave birth to a baby girl. The parents of her husband
and brother-in-law of her husband have been creating problems
and are opposing the disbursement of Provident Fund to her.
This application moved on 24.02.2016. It is also contended that
there was no harassment at all. The report of the SHO Mahila
Thana, Sagar dated 02.04.2016 indicates that the dispute was
with regard to withdraw of the provident fund amount lying with
the Soni India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, FIR lodged on 09.04.2016.
Applicants also placed reliance in the cases of Preeti Guta
and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2010)
7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741, Monju
Roy and others vs. State of West Bengal (2015) 13 SCC,
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Arti @ Madhvi vs. State of M.P. decided on
22.01.2018 in M.Cr.C. No.6747/2016 and Sandeep Singh
Bais @ Ashu @ others vs. State of M.P. and another
decided on 09.03.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.3658/2016.
Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
9. It is also contended that the complainant lodged a report
before the Superintendent of Police, Sagar alleging that she was
7 months pregnant at the time of the death of her husband.
Later, she gave birth to a baby girl. The parents of her husband
and brother-in-law of her husband have been creating problems
and are opposing the disbursement of Provident Fund to her.
This application moved on 24.02.2016. It is also contended that
there was no harassment at all. The report of the SHO Mahila
Thana, Sagar dated 02.04.2016 indicates that the dispute was
with regard to withdraw of the provident fund amount lying with
the Soni India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, FIR lodged on 09.04.2016.
Applicants also placed reliance in the cases of Preeti Guta
and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2010)
7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741, Monju
Roy and others vs. State of West Bengal (2015) 13 SCC,
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Arti @ Madhvi vs. State of M.P. decided on
22.01.2018 in M.Cr.C. No.6747/2016 and Sandeep Singh
Bais @ Ashu @ others vs. State of M.P. and another
decided on 09.03.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.3658/2016.
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012
9. It is also contended that the complainant lodged a report
before the Superintendent of Police, Sagar alleging that she was
7 months pregnant at the time of the death of her husband.
Later, she gave birth to a baby girl. The parents of her husband
and brother-in-law of her husband have been creating problems
and are opposing the disbursement of Provident Fund to her.
This application moved on 24.02.2016. It is also contended that
there was no harassment at all. The report of the SHO Mahila
Thana, Sagar dated 02.04.2016 indicates that the dispute was
with regard to withdraw of the provident fund amount lying with
the Soni India Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, FIR lodged on 09.04.2016.
Applicants also placed reliance in the cases of Preeti Guta
and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2010)
7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another (2012) 10 SCC 741, Monju
Roy and others vs. State of West Bengal (2015) 13 SCC,
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Arti @ Madhvi vs. State of M.P. decided on
22.01.2018 in M.Cr.C. No.6747/2016 and Sandeep Singh
Bais @ Ashu @ others vs. State of M.P. and another
decided on 09.03.2017 in M.Cr.C. No.3658/2016.
1