SUPREME COURT SETASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, LUCKNOW BENCH WHEREBY THEHIGH COURT GRANTED BAIL TO THE ACCUSED HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED VICTIM,CONVICTED BY A JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR OFFENCESUNDER SECTIONS 304B, 498A AND 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) AND SECTIONS 3AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 STAYING EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCES OFIMPRISONMENT OF THE ACCUSED BY HOLDING THAT THE FAILURE TO LODGE AN FIRCOMPLAINING OF DOWRY AND HARASSMENT BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM, IS IN OURCONSIDERED VIEW, INCONSEQUENTIAL. THE PARENTS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THEVICTIM OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT WANT TO PRECIPITATE A COMPLETE BREAK DOWN OF THEMARRIAGE BY LODGING AN FIR AGAINST ACCUSED AND HIS PARENTS, WHILE THE VICTIMWAS ALIVE.

 

 

 

 

NAME

MOBILE NO.

E-MAIL I’D

RANJEET KUMAR

8383098478, 9667769795

rk@courtkutchehry.com

JAI THAKUR

8130703334, 9355723300

jai.thakur@courtkutchehry.com

RAJEEV RANJAN

9334553249

rajiv.ranjan@courtkutchehry.com

ASHOK MISHRA

9718327746

sales@courtkutchehry.com

RAVI KUMAR


ravi.singh@courtkutchehry.com

(SUPREME COURT SETASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, LUCKNOW BENCH WHEREBY THEHIGH COURT GRANTED BAIL TO THE ACCUSED HUSBAND OF THE DECEASED VICTIM,CONVICTED BY A JUDGMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR OFFENCESUNDER SECTIONS 304B, 498A AND 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) AND SECTIONS 3AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 STAYING EXECUTION OF THE SENTENCES OFIMPRISONMENT OF THE ACCUSED BY HOLDING THAT THE FAILURE TO LODGE AN FIRCOMPLAINING OF DOWRY AND HARASSMENT BEFORE THE DEATH OF THE VICTIM, IS IN OURCONSIDERED VIEW, INCONSEQUENTIAL. THE PARENTS AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THEVICTIM OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT WANT TO PRECIPITATE A COMPLETE BREAK DOWN OF THEMARRIAGE BY LODGING AN FIR AGAINST ACCUSED AND HIS PARENTS, WHILE THE VICTIMWAS ALIVE.)




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT WHETHER ORDERS AND NOTICES ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND STATE AUTHORITIES SUBSEQUENT TO FILING OF THE APPEAL CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE APPEAL OR NOT?

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON DIRECTING A FRESH/ DE NOVO INVESTIGATION EVEN AFTER INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CONCLUDED AND POLICE REPORT SUBMITTED UNDER SECTION 173(2) OF THE CR. P.C. THOUGH UNDER SECTION 173 (8) OF CR.P.C. ONLY A FURTHER INVESTIGATION CAN BE ORDERED.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ON SECTION 5(2) READ WITH SECTION 5(1)(e) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947