I won’t comment about this Judgment. Posting here, with a hope that it may be set aside at a higher court.
State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024Month: December 2024
Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. Vs V.Kumar Vamanrao and Ors on 04 Mar 2024
A division bench of the Apex Court reiterated that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings.
From Para 15,
Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) By Lrs. Vs V.Kumar Vamanrao and Ors on 04 Mar 202415. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings. It is not a case in which there was any error in the pleadings and the parties knowing their case fully well had led evidence to enable the Court to deal with that evidence. In the case in hand, specific amendment in the pleadings was sought by the plaintiffs with reference to 1965 partition but the same was rejected. In such a situation, the evidence with reference to 1965 partition cannot be considered.
Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024
A single bench of MP High Court at Jabalpur, held that absence of specific date and time when the complainant-wife was subjected to the demand of dowry is sufficient to quash Dowry demand allegation.
From Para 6,
Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 20246. In the present case, this Court issued notices to the respondent No. 2. The report of the office reflects that the notices were served upon the respondent No. 2 yet respondent No. 2 has not appeared before this Court nor any one has filed any Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is also undisputed that prosecution was initially launched against the husband of petitioner No. 2 Rahul Gaur who has also expired after lodging of F.I.R. A perusal of F.I.R discloses the allegation against the present petitioners that they used to visit the complainant who was residing at Rachna Nagar and used to demand Rs.5 lakhs in order to buy a bigger house. F.I.R. discloses that complainant was not residing with the present petitioners and was residing at Rachna Nagar with her husband. According to complainant petitioner No. 3 also used to record conversation and used to humiliate her. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R that the petitioner No. 2 was acting on the instructions of petitioner No. 1. After registration of F.I.R the statement of the complainant and her parents were also recorded. The statement are there on record. Perusal of all the statement reflects that identical allegations have been levelled by all the witnesses. The allegations are not specific. There are no particulars like specific date and time when the complaint was subjected to the demand of dowry. As per complainant own showing the present petitioners were not residing with the present complainant but the complainant made an effort to demonstrate that the present petitioners used to visit her at place. The said particulars have not been disclosed by the complainant in the F.I.R. or there is any disclosure of such particulars in the entire statement of the witnesses.
Index of Quash judgments is here.