Smt. Shahida Begum v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Applicant :- Smt. Shahida Begum Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Chopra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 24.05.2022, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj has filed his personal affidavit, which is taken on record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for a suitable direction to the Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj to comply with the order recovery warrant issued against the opposite party no.3 and to arrest the opposite party no.3 in compliance of the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj in Case No. 1459 of 2021 (Shahida Bano Vs. Sirajuddin) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2012. Perusal of the personal affidavit as well as array of parties shows that the opposite party no.3 is residing at District Kanpur. Accordingly, it is expected that the Superintendent of Police, Prayagraj shall make his all best possible efforts and measures to comply the orders passed by learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj in Case No. 1459 of 2021 (Shahida Bano Vs. Sirajuddin) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2012, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified of the order before it. With the aforesaid observations, the instant application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 30.5.2022 S.Ali Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 12.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 30 May 2022.
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.