This interim petition challenging non-seizure of dowry articles in a criminal case was dismissed after the state counsel submitted that items were seized and offered to the informant.
The Complaint was dismissed based on submission that dowry articles were seized and placed in the informant's custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRLMP No.1587 of 2016
17.05.2017. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though Aul P.S. Case No.238 was registered in
November, 2016 under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B, 506, 34 read with section 4 D.P. Act, the Inv
estigating Officer has not seized the dowry articles as yet.
Learned Additional Standing Counsel on instruction submits that the dowry articles ava
ilable in the house of the accused were seized on 16.11.2016 and have been left in the Zima of
the informant.
In view of such submissions of the learned Additional Standing Counsel, the CRLMP is d
ismissed.
B.K.Nayak, J.
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Complaint regarding non-seizure of dowry articles should be disposed of on the contention that they were seized and handed over to the informant?
Whether the legislation specifically mentioned in the complaint is implicated in the controversy?
Petitioner
State
B.K. Nayak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court