Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.36 seconds)

Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020

9. The relationship of the petitioner with the respondent No.2 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has initiated proceedings against the respondent No.2 claiming maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Court at Ghaziabad. It is a matter of record that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH VS. NEHA AND ANOTHER reported in 2021(2) SCC 324 had directed that parties to a proceeding for maintenance, should furnish their -7- CRL.P No. 9710 of 2017 assets and liabilities in the form of an affidavit. Therefore, it was incumbent for the petitioner and respondent No.2 to furnish the details of their assets and liabilities including their source of income etc. The petitioner secured the details of the respondent No.2 by creating a fake user ID and a fake password and also a fake e-mail ID. She had furnished her own mobile number to fill in the particulars to request the details of Form-26AS of the respondent No.2. No doubt, the petitioner has done so in a desperate attempt to secure the details of the respondent No.2. However, the respondent No.2 was not "induced" by the petitioner to furnish the details and she did not cause any wrongful gain or wrongful loss to the respondent No.2. Therefore, no offence under Section 415 or 417 of IPC was committed. Even otherwise, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" secured the details, but it for a legitimate purpose that is to produce it before the Court at Ghaziabad. Section 66C and 66D of the Act, 2000 provides that the words "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" found in Section 66C and 66D of the Act, 2000 shall have the same meaning as -8- CRL.P No. 9710 of 2017 defined under Section 24 and 25 of IPC, which are extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 139 - Cited by 1507 - I Malhotra - Full Document
1   2 Next