P.C. The main stand before the High Court was that even on a bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that alleged companymission of offence was number made out so far as the appellant is companycerned.
The High Court found that the application was to be rejected as numberground was made out for quashing the proceedings.
Further companydition was stipulated that the appellant has to pay Rs.1000/ per month towards maintenance to the respondent No.4.
No.1714 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
124 of 2005 for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Section 498 A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, in short the IPC in Police Station in Sector 39, Noida, District Goutam Budha Nagar.
861 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
It however directed that the appellant shall number be arrested till submission of the police report.
860 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
No.1067 of 2006 With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
On the basis of companyplaint filed, proceedings were initiated.
Appellant calls in question legality of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing petition filed for quashing the First Information Report in short the FIR dated 30th April, 2005 registered as Crime No.
The legality of proceedings was questioned before the High Court by a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Cr.
The order was passed purportedly following the principles set out in this Court in Bodhisattwa Gautanm v. Subhra Chakrabarti AIR 1996 SC 922 .
