Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.70 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Mohinder Singh vs Gulwant Singh And Others on 17 December, 1991
39. It has been held by the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 1894 in the
case of Mohinder Singh Vs. Gulwant Singh that where prima facie case has
been made out and process is issued by the Magistrate the High Court should
not exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, and cannot quash proceedings.
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Tara Dutt And Anr on 19 November, 1999
32. It has been held by the decision reported in (2000)1 Supreme Court
Cases 230 [Para 5] in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Tara Dutt and Another
that :
Priya Bala Ghosh vs Suresh Chandra Ghosh on 4 March, 1971
18. Mr. Sekhar Basu, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the
provision of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in support of his
submission and has submitted that the ingredients of Section 498A like
making cruel treatment or subjecting the wife to cruelty are not there either in
the complaint of the complainant or in the statement of the complainant on
S.A. and there was no such wilful conduct of the present petitioner which is
of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (mental or physical) of the wife or
there was no such harassment of the wife where such harassment was with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet unlawful demand for
11
any dowry or property or valuable security nor the ingredients of Section 494
of the Indian Penal Code that the petitioner being husband married again in
the instant case in which such marriage was void by reason of its taking
place during the life time of his wife, are also present either in the complaint
of the complainant or in her statement on S.A., and has referred to the
decision reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1153 in the case of Smt. Priya
Bala Ghosh Vs. Suresh Chandra Ghosh in support of his contention that
proof of solemnization of second marriage in accordance with essential
religious rites applicable to parties is a must for conviction for bigamy and
mere admission by accused that he had contracted second marriage is not
enough, but Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2
has argued that the said points require consideration at the time of trial after
taking evidence and not at the stage of taking cognizance.