NITIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent heard finally.

(2.) Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 21-02-2017 passed by the trial Court whereby the charges for the offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against the petitioner.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, FIR does not disclose cause of action to be ceased by the competent Criminal Court at Bhind. On the basis of omnibus allegations, without specific details time and place, manner of demand of dowry, no liability or culpability can be fastened over the petitioner in the case in hand. According to him, trial Court has wrongly framed the charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus, prayed for setting aside of impugned order.