<?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>2007 (2) TMI 725 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313550</link>
    <description>At the stage of framing charge, the Court must consider the entire investigation record, including material collected by the investigating officer but not placed in the charge-sheet if its suppression is brought to notice. The Court treated fair and just investigation as part of the criminal process and held that a charge cannot rest on a one-sided record. On the material before it, the statements under Section 161 CrPC and earlier complaints showed that the complainant had already separated from the in-laws, taken her belongings, and made no complaint against the petitioner regarding retained istridhan. The Court therefore found that no prima facie case under Section 406 IPC was made out against the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2024 11:39:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 725 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313550</link>
      <description>At the stage of framing charge, the Court must consider the entire investigation record, including material collected by the investigating officer but not placed in the charge-sheet if its suppression is brought to notice. The Court treated fair and just investigation as part of the criminal process and held that a charge cannot rest on a one-sided record. On the material before it, the statements under Section 161 CrPC and earlier complaints showed that the complainant had already separated from the in-laws, taken her belongings, and made no complaint against the petitioner regarding retained istridhan. The Court therefore found that no prima facie case under Section 406 IPC was made out against the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>