Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)

Abhishek vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 August, 2023

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that accused no.1 has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the defacto complainant on 24.7.2020 and, thereafter, the present FIR was registered on 31.7.2020, i.e. after one week, as a counter-blast to the said petition and it clearly indicates that it is a false case foisted against the petitioners and accused no.1. But as per the submissions made by the learned counsel second respondent, after the complainant was driven out from the house, when accused nos.2 and 3 did not allow her to enter the house on 15.7.2023, in fact, she has lodged a report with the police on 22.7.2020 and the police, after conducting a preliminary inquiry, has registered said FIR on 31.7.2020 and as such said FIR is not a counter-blast to the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights by the husband. He would contend that in fact the petition filed by the accused no.1 is a counter-blast to the report lodged by the defacto complainant with police on 22.7.2020. So, when the wife has lodged report with the police on 22.7.2020, and when Section 9 petition was filed on 24.7.2020, it cannot be said that the present FIR was lodged as a counter-blast to the petition filed by the husband. So on that ground the present FIR cannot be quashed. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, aforesaid judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered in the case of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083 has no application to the facts of the case. That was the case, Page 9 of 11 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 06 21:01:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/17702/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/03/2024 undefined wherein the husband has field divorce petition and, thereafter, the wife has lodged report with the police. So, the facts are very much distinguishable, when compared to the present facts of the case. Therefore, the judgment is of no avail to the case of petitioner nos.2 and 3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 18 - P V Kumar - Full Document
1