Inam v. Ashraf
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498 IPC initiated against an applicant for enticing a married woman, holding that judicial precedent established the applicant as the woman's legal husband at the time of the alleged offense, negating any prima facie case.
What did the court decide?
Criminal Complaint Case No. 1522 of 2010 and the summoning order dated 01.02.2010 were set aside.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 235 of 2011
(Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)
Inam ....….…… Applicant
versus
Ashraf ..………. Respondent
Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Mohd. Safdar, present for the petitioner/applicant.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate, present for the respondent.
U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)
The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 01.02.2010, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1522 of 2010, captained as Ashraf vs. Inam, under Section 498 IPC, pending before 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
- The complainant (respondent herein) filed a criminal complaint case against the accused (applicant herein) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, in relation to offences under Section 498, 379 and 341 of IPC. Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Statements of Shahnaj and Siratal were recorded
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 498 IPC should be quashed given that the accused was the legal husband of the alleged victim at the time of the alleged incident.
Whether a prima facie case exists against the applicant for the offence of enticing a married woman.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Inam
- respondent
Ashraf
Coram
U.C. Dhyani
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Uttarakhand HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- C482/235/2011
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court