Relying upon a companyy of a deed of partnership, he obtained a temporary injunction restraining her and her husband from interfering with the possession of a certain property The respondent No 2, thereupon.
From the Judgment and order dated 20 3 1987 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl.
The appellants, after obtaining special leave, are challenging this order in the present appeal.
The original document was number filed in the civil companyrt, and temporary injunction was obtained on the strength of its companyy.
Shakuntala Devi, wife of Inder Prakash, respondent No.
The Magistrate was accordingly directed to frame fresh charges.
The State preferred a revision and the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, who heard the application upheld the order of the Magistrate.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURlSDICTlON Criminal Appeal No.
Misc No.
5338 M of 1986 Prem Malhotra for the Appellants C. Mohanta, C.V.S. Rao, A.K Goel, and B.P Singh for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversing the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Hissar refusing to frame charges against the appellants under ss 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code.
617 of 1987.
The appellant Sushil Kumar filed a civil suit against Smt.
