JEEVARATHNA v. TMSHRUTHI
Judgment
ORDER Petitioners accused Nos.1 5 C.C. No.3372/2011. They have called in question the order dated
10.11.2011, wherein the learned Magistrate has ordered for issue of summons to the accused.
#2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 — complainant had filed complaint in Crime No.59/2010 against her husband — Praveen and petitioners herein. On investigation, Police filed a ‘8’ report in so far as these petitioners are concerned and chargesheet was filed only against accused No.1 therein. No steps were taken by the complainant to protest the ‘B’ report filed by the Police in respect of the petitioners herein. In turn, separate complaint is filed on the same allegations. He also submitted that the allegations do not show any offence alleged to have been cornrnitted by these petitioners.
#3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - (Ar ) C 0 3 o - D i D D ) U Y D 3 ) U Y D i D r r - D C 3 t 0 Y D i D Y D D C D ) Z L C - r Y D D C l f 0 3 o - t r : ; : ; r n 0 L C D C D Y D D C D n r , D - C 0 h - - - D C D i D ) i C D ( D D D C ) U D C D C 1 : D C ) ) U C Y D - i D D 0 r Y D D C t - - i - D t r D C ) C D C L C ( 0 3 i - 0 D . D C D C i D * ) U 0 ) U Y D U D C ) C ) i U D < ) U D C 0 = h - i D D Y D i D r — h - = r c D C t - < ‘ ) U ) C ( D - D C = — t r i D - ; D C i D r D C 0 t — 3 ) 0 ) U t r r Y D D C t ‘ - F D L C D C D l D D D 0 ( ) I L — D l f D C 0 , i D w w J % ) N D C t r 3 1 t 9 D ) U i = D D C L C - D )0 U ) 0 ‘ - ) U DC D D C 0 D D C ) U D D C D i D D C 0 D h D C DC D L C ) I L i D D L C Q i D u L C D C . D C t r 0 D D C - ) i L i D - r — & D C ‘ r r ) C r D C D D C D C r D C t . 0 - , r D t r “ ‘ 0 i D t - r i D l f a 0 i D D D C i - D
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.