<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (3) TMI 1240 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188736</link>
    <description>Criminal proceedings arising from allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty should not be quashed at the threshold where the complaint, read as a whole, discloses a prima facie offence and a triable case. Inherent jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the court should not assess the probability of conviction or undertake a detailed comparison of rival versions at that stage. Specific allegations of harassment for dowry, beating, and forcible removal from the matrimonial home were treated as sufficient factual foundation for trial, and the authorities cited for quashing were distinguished on their facts. The proceedings were therefore directed to continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:19:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1240 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188736</link>
      <description>Criminal proceedings arising from allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty should not be quashed at the threshold where the complaint, read as a whole, discloses a prima facie offence and a triable case. Inherent jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and the court should not assess the probability of conviction or undertake a detailed comparison of rival versions at that stage. Specific allegations of harassment for dowry, beating, and forcible removal from the matrimonial home were treated as sufficient factual foundation for trial, and the authorities cited for quashing were distinguished on their facts. The proceedings were therefore directed to continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>