BHASKAR LAL SHARMA Vs. MONICA
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
February 18,2014
BHASKAR LAL SHARMA
Appellant
VERSUS
MONICA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SUKUMAR PRAMANICK VS. MODAN SANDHUKA [LAWS(CAL)-2019-3-9] [REFERRED TO]HIMACHAL PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
RITA LEENA D'SOUZA VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
MR. SANJAY SHRIVASTAVA, SON OF RAJENDRAPRASAD, AGE 48 YEARS, OCCU: SERVICE, MARRIED, INDIAN NATIONAL, RESIDENT OF F6, SUNSHINE APARTMENT, SHANTINAGAR, NAVELIM, MARGAO, GOA 403 707 VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION, MIDC, CIDCO, AURANGABAD, TQ. & DIST AURANGABAD [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-135] [REFERRED TO]
MEGH NATH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-64] [REFERRED TO]
JAI MATA DI RICE MILL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAN SAGAR VS. MONIKA SAGAR CHAUDHARI [LAWS(MPH)-2022-4-163] [REFERRED TO]
RAZEEV CHOUDHURY @ RAKIB CHOUDHURY VS. THE STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-5-141] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KUMAR VS. CHANDRAHASINI ROAD CARRIER AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2014-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR SINGH RAJPUROHIT VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASHBHAI VADILAL BRAHMBHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-6-139] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYALAXMI DINESHCHANDRA @ BALASAHEB ARAGADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
MANJUNATH YOLABAVI AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-286] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK KAWARI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-1-555] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK YESHWANTRAO SHINDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE STATION OFFIC [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-87] [REFERRED TO]
BASAVARAJ VS. SHANKAR S/O MALKAPPA NIDAGUNDI [LAWS(KAR)-2020-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH UPENDRA KARHADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-132] [REFERRED TO]
A ADITHYA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK PHARMACHEM INDIA LTD. VS. RAJASTHAN MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-117] [REFERRED TO]
PURAV ATULBHAI SHAH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-8-245] [REFERRED TO]
GURINDERJIT SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-824] [REFERRED]
PIRAN ONKAR SALVE & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
SUKUMAR PRAMANICK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-3-165] [REFERRED TO]
SOMNATH ASHOK DAREKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-37] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH KANHAYALAL KANKARIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
MUZHIR AHMED ITBAR KHAN AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-96] [REFERRED TO]
MST MAHJABEEN AND OTHERS VS. SHEELA RASHID [LAWS(J&K)-2017-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL TODI @ ANIL KUMAR TODI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED VS. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-5-85] [REFERRED TO]
SAU. MANGALA RAMDAS MEDHANE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
CHAYABAI W/O. SAHEBRAO HIWALE & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-60] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR GODARA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR, BEGUMPURA POLICE STATION, AURANGABAD [LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-177] [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY JAIN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
C LALRINENGA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
SUMIT AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-134] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT PANDURANG HINGANE VS. MANISHA PRASHANT HINGANE [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
BABURAO V.NAIR VS. STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-73] [REFERRED TO]
ASWATHI VS. RAJEESH RAMAN [LAWS(KER)-2023-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH BHAGWANEAO PURI & ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH S/O. BHAGWANRAO PURI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
GOUTAM MAJUMDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
SINDHU A. P. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-1-230] [REFERRED TO]
BALKISHAN DHANDHANIA AND ORS. VS. NIDHI DHANDHANIA [LAWS(GAU)-2015-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)As ordered earlier, both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Order.
SLP (Crl.) No. 4125-4126/2008
(2.)Leave granted.
(3.)The essential facts may be noticed at the outset.
The respondent, herein, Monica, had filed a complaint under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Penal Code") against the appellants and one Vikas Sharma (respondent No.2). The appellants are the father and mother-in-law of the respondent-Monica whereas the subsequently impleaded respondent No. 2 is her husband.
On 21.3.2005 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi took cognizance of the offences alleged by the respondent in the complaint petition which was numbered as 287/1A and issued summons to the appellants and the second respondent herein. Aggrieved, the appellants moved the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") for quashing the complaint. By judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants. Against the said order the appellants moved this Court by means of two special leave petitions. By order dated 27.07.2009 leave was granted and the appeals registered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 1325-1326 of 2009 were disposed of by this Court holding that while no offence under Section 498A of the Penal Code was made out against either of the appellants, the offence under Section 406, as alleged, was prima facie made out against the appellant No. 2 alone.
SLP (Crl.) No. 4125-4126/2008
(2.)Leave granted.
(3.)The essential facts may be noticed at the outset.
The respondent, herein, Monica, had filed a complaint under Sections 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Penal Code") against the appellants and one Vikas Sharma (respondent No.2). The appellants are the father and mother-in-law of the respondent-Monica whereas the subsequently impleaded respondent No. 2 is her husband.
On 21.3.2005 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi took cognizance of the offences alleged by the respondent in the complaint petition which was numbered as 287/1A and issued summons to the appellants and the second respondent herein. Aggrieved, the appellants moved the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") for quashing the complaint. By judgment and order dated 21.1.2008 the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants. Against the said order the appellants moved this Court by means of two special leave petitions. By order dated 27.07.2009 leave was granted and the appeals registered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 1325-1326 of 2009 were disposed of by this Court holding that while no offence under Section 498A of the Penal Code was made out against either of the appellants, the offence under Section 406, as alleged, was prima facie made out against the appellant No. 2 alone.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.