Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Supreme Court Judgement on 498A misuse-Dalveer Bhandari

Supreme Court Judgement on 498A misuse-Dalveer Bhandari

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,380|Likes:
Published by laxman_sif
Preeti Gupta & Another …Appellants
State of Jharkhand & Another ….Respondents
Preeti Gupta & Another …Appellants
State of Jharkhand & Another ….Respondents

More info:

Published by: laxman_sif on Aug 18, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1512 OF 2010(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009)Preeti Gupta & Another Appellants
State of Jharkhand & Another .Respondents
J U D G M E N TDalveer Bhandari, J.
1.Leave granted.2.This appeal has been filed by Preeti Gupta the marriedsister-in-law and a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat,Gujarat with her husband and Gaurav Poddar, a permanent
resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra, who is the unmarriedbrother-in-law of the complainant, Manisha Poddar, againstthe impugned judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand atRanchi, Jharkhand dated 27.4.2009 passed in CriminalMiscellaneous Petition Nos.304 of 2009.3.Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appealare recapitulated as under: The Complainant Manisha was married to Kamal Poddarat Kanpur on 10.12.2006. Immediately after the marriage, thecomplainant who is respondent no.2 in this appeal left forMumbai along with her husband Kamal Poddar who was working with the Tata Consultancy Services (for short “TCS”)and was permanently residing at Mumbai. The complainantalso joined the TCS at Mumbai on 23.12.2006. Respondentno.2 visited Ranchi to participate in “Gangaur” festival (animportant Hindu festival widely celebrated in Northern India)on 16.3.2007. After staying there for a week, she returned toMumbai on 24.03.2007.
4.Respondent no.2, Manisha Poddar filed a complaint on08.07.2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi undersections 498-A, 406, 341, 323 and 120-B of the Indian PenalCode read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Actagainst all immediate relations of her husband, namely,Pyarelal Poddar (father-in-law), Kamal Poddar (husband),Sushila Devi (mother-in-law), Gaurav Poddar (unmarriedbrother-in-law) and Preeti Gupta @ Preeti Agrawal (marriedsister-in-law). The complaint was transferred to the court othe Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Statements of Respondentno.2 and other witnesses were recorded and on 10.10.2008the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and passed thesummoning order of the appellants. The appellants areaggrieved by the said summoning order.5.In the criminal complaint, it was alleged that a luxury car was demanded by all the accused named in the complaint. It was also alleged that respondent no.2 was physicallyassaulted at Mumbai. According to the said allegations of thecomplainant, it appears that the alleged incidents had taken

Activity (29)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Shravan Sikchi liked this
Shitanshu Kumar liked this
Suman Kumar liked this
Deepika Rajesh liked this
Keshav Sain liked this
advopaul liked this
Mudit Srivastava liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->