REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Pinki Yadav Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

TALAB HAJI HUSSAIN VS. MADHUKAR PURSHOTTAM MONDKAR [REFERRED TO]
R P KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. S N BASAK [REFERRED TO]
S N SHARMA VS. BIPEN KUMAR TIWARI [REFERRED TO]
HAZARI LAL GUPTA VS. RAMESHWAR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
JEHAN SINGH VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
NAGAWWA VS. VEERANNA SHIVALINGAPPA KONJALGI [REFERRED TO]
KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MADHU LIMAYE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. J A C SALDANHA:J A C SALDANHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. SWAPAN KUMAR GUHA:SANCHAITA INVESTMENTS [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. PURSHOTAM DASS JHUNJUNWALA [REFERRED TO]
L V JADHAV VS. SHANKARRAO ABASAHEB PAWAR [REFERRED TO]
PRATIBHA RANI VS. SURAJ KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
J P SHARMA VS. VINOD KUMAR JAIN [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA VS. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJTRAO ANGRE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. MURAD ALI KHAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. R K SRIVASTAVA:R K SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PREETI GUPTA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR VS. KHWAJA NAZIR AHMAD [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashment of First Information Report registered at Crime No. 0077/2017 at Police Station - Tukoganj, Indore in a criminal case which is numbered as Criminal Case No. 2781/2017 pending before ACJM, Indore for offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 506, 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) Facts of the case reveal that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by one Keerti Yadav on 10.02.2017 at Police Station-Tukoganj stating that her marriage took place with Rohit Yadav on 16.04.2014 and she was treated well initially by father-in-law - Nirmal Kumar Yadav; by Asha Yadav - mother-in-law and Pinky Yadav, sister-in-law. She has further stated that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was demanded by the in-laws and she was tortured physically and mentally in those circumstances, she has lodged First Information Report against her in-laws and the husband as well as the present applicant-Ms. Pinky Yadav.

(3.) Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel has argued before this Court that in the First Information Report, there is no allegation against the present applicant and the allegations, if any, are against other accused persons namely husband - Rohit Yadav; mother-in-law - Asha Yadav and father-in-law 'Nirmal Yadav' and therefore, as no specific allegation is against the present applicant, the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed to the extent the present applicant is concerned. He has also drawn attention of this Court towards the statements of the complainant recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C., 1973. In the statements, the complainant has made omnibus statements.

Click here to view full judgment.

PINKI YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address