REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Mahendra Nagpure Appellant

V/S

STATE OF M.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAVIKANT DUBEY AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
GEETA MEHROTRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
PREETI GUPTA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
KANS RAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MONJU ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
RAJA LAL SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
KAMESH PANJIYAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
TARAMANI PARAKH VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
K RAMAKRISHNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
PEPSI FOODS LIMITED VS. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
ASMATHUNNISA VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
PRATIBHA VS. RAMESHWARI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
RUPALI DEVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD WAJID VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.177/2021 registered at Police Station Hatta, District Balaghat, for offence under Ss. 498-A, 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for the applicants that by mistake the applicants have not challenged the criminal proceeding but it is submitted that once the FIR has been challenged and if it is quashed, then consequence would be that all the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the said FIR will lose its effect and accordingly, it is submitted that while considering the application filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., prayer for quashment of criminal proceeding may also be considered.

(3.) Heard on merits.

Click here to view full judgment.

MAHENDRA NAGPURE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address