High Court of Jharkhand had set aside the CrPC 239 dismissal and remitted back the case to lower court to to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the application filed by the petitioner.
Highlights
It has further been alleged that the previous husband of the informant had died in Kashmir and she had been paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which amount the petitioner wanted. It has also beenalleged that the informant had given Hero Honda motorcycle, Rs. 2.5 lacks in cash and money for construction of the boundary wall.
In addition to the weird instant complaint filed in 2006 as Kotwali (S.N.) P. S. Case No. 336 of 2006, which attracted IPC 498A, the knife had earlier on the same set of facts, another case was instituted by the informant in 2004 as Kotwali (S.N.) P. S. Case No. 209 of 2004.
It is the exact same PS two complaints were filed, on same set of facts and the first time it was registered as IPC 498A case, and the second time it attracted IPC 498A as well as IPC 494!! When the order taking cognizance dated 27.06.2007 was challenged by the petitioner, the Court is its infinite wisdom, has quashed only IPC 498A in the second case, as it justified the IPC 498A was already there in the first case!!!
Wah bhai wah!!!
Binod Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2016
Shades of Knife
Disclaimer:
The materials provided herein are solely for information purposes. No attorney-client relationship is created when you access or use the site or the materials. The information presented on this site does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for legal advice from an attorney licensed in your state.
Judgments curated, reproduced from sci.gov.in, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other similar Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in, dcourts.gov.in or any other Government websites such as Gazettes and repositories of Government Orders and Commented in accordance with Section 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) and any other applicable public disclosure laws/provisions in India and in various other countries.
I neither have control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in entire form, nor I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Read more gyan here.
Though, I can mask/redacts content (like names of parties from cause title!) from my site, on request for any parties to a case, even though, I am not legally obligated to do so, except for express bar from a Competent Court.
Om Shanthi !!!
Oh, by the way, my competent Legal team delivers time-bound legal reliefs to victims of false family and matrimonial cases at
AnaghaLegalReliefs.in !!! (work-in-progress)
We are on social media too.
Just google for: Anagha Legal Reliefs
