TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court restores complaint under section 494 IPC</h1> <h3>SMT. CHAND DHAWAN Versus JAWAHAR LAL AND ORS.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the complaint against respondents 1 and 2 for further legal proceedings. The Court held that the complaint ... - Issues involved: Dissolution of marriage, bigamy complaint, abuse of court process, quashing of complaint under section 482 Cr.P.C.Summary:The Supreme Court heard an appeal regarding a bigamy complaint filed by the appellant against the first respondent, alleging that he married another person while his marriage with the appellant was subsisting. The High Court had quashed the complaint, citing contradictions and jurisdictional issues. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in analyzing the evidence and overlooked the principle for exercising inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. The respondent argued that the allegations were frivolous and actuated by oblique motive. The High Court's decision was based on misdirection in analyzing the truth of the allegations without legal proof.The Supreme Court held that the complaint disclosed an offense under section 494 IPC, as the appellant and witnesses supported the claim of a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. The Court criticized the High Court's reliance on additional materials produced by the respondents, which were not admitted by the appellant. It was deemed unjustified to assume the complaint was false based on unproven materials. The Court concluded that the proceedings should continue against the first and second respondents, while other respondents were unnecessarily implicated. The complaint was to proceed only against respondents 1 and 2, setting aside the High Court's judgment.Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the complaint against respondents 1 and 2 for further legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
