Poonam Rani Chawla v. State of Uttarakhand & two others
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 08 Jul 2008
- Bench
- DHARAM VEER, PRAFULLA C PANT
Outcome
Dismissed
The writ petition is dismissed summarily
Provisions considered
Judgment
Operative part
Poonam Rani Chawla, D/o Sri Lekhraj Chawla, R/o C-69, Hari Mandir Gali, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. (cid:133)..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & two others. (cid:133)(cid:133).Respondents Dated: 08th July, 2008 Hon(cid:146)ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon(cid:146)ble Dharam Veer,J. Heard Sri Pratiroop Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tanuj Semwal, learned AGA for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report dated 28.06.2008 lodged by respondent no.3, on the basis of which Crime No.318/2008 registered, relating to the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. and one punishable under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with Police Station Rudrapur District Udham Singh Nagar. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and that of learned AGA for the State and after going though the contents of First Information Report, relating to dowry death, we are not inclined to interfere with the investigation. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay Appl. No.4120/2008 is disposed of accordingly). (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C.Pant, J.)
08.07.2008 Arti
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is dismissed summarily
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 08 Jul 2008. The bench was DHARAM VEER, PRAFULLA C PANT.
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.