Chhattisgarh High Court
CRR/1157/1998 of Prahlad Singh Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 February 1999
OF “1%. 00m; OE cRmmAL LRggEn-UEg. nnnnn A ;“ >r ‘ .L‘HJz. HIGH COURT OF JUDECATURE . cmmm. mvmsmnwo. ”$7 A998. v 1. Prahlad ‘Singh $on of Nagarmal ’znanSal, a ? * aged 5o years, .Ajay Kumar son of Kishanchand Bansal, E a ‘ aged 22 years,
......
>r
‘.L‘HJz. HIGH[COURT]OF[JUDECATURE]
.
cmmm. mvmsmnwo.[”$7]A998.
v 1.Prahlad[‘Singh][ $on][ of][ Nagarmal][ ’znanSal,]
a?*
aged5o years,
Bansal,
.Ajay Kumar son of Kishanchandaged22years, E a[‘]
Anil Kumar[son][ of][ Kishanchand]
Bansal,
§
N
aged[28]years,
I
All[Resid][ ents][ of][ Manendragarn][ Road,]
(3%
“Mo;SI yaAmbikapur; Police[station][ mbikapur,]é?“District Surguja(MP).. . . . . . . . . .AJVOCQhVs.rV(1——,:PEAR.State of Mamlya Pradesh . . . . . . . . . .gPmcayg.
NomAPrLiC NE.
GRIMIZNAL REVISION[ UKWER][ SECTION][ 39w]
“1%.4m.OF 00m; OE cRmmAL LRggEn-UEg.
nnnnn
Page 1 of 3
A;“
,
CRIMINAL REVISION[NO.]ll57OFl92§
?rah1ad Singhand twoothers
Vs,
The stateofMadhyaPradesh
ORDER
Theapplicantsareaggrieved by[the][ order][ dated]4.8.1998,passed[by][ the]FirstAddiiona15e5$10nsJudge,Ambikapur,framingcharge against them for an offencepunishabieundersection 506-8oftheIndian PenalCadea
V.
,2“
Learnedcuunselfor theapplicantsurged thatthere wasnoevidence on record tobasesuchacharge,an§ that thecharge was vague.
3. Counsel for theStatesupported theorderstating that[the]evidenceof theprosecutrixand horlandwlady[was]sufficient tomakeouta prim;faciecase,and the threatscontinued to be given[forva]longduration.Nospecificdatecould,therefore,be givenand thechargedidnotsufferfrom anydefect.
S‘
4. Havingheardcounsel for bothsides_and havingdocumentson record,weareofthe View thatperused[the]thispetitionmustbedismissed.-The proceedingscommenced on the written reportoftheprosecutrixlodged»atgPolice-Station[Ambikapur.]Therearespecific.-\allegationsofcriminalintimidation by theapplicants"Theallegationswere repeatedin herstatemtntrecorded i “.
2
Page 2 of 3
by[the]Police.And thereisevidenceofherland—ladyalscon thesamapoint.A$ thestageofcharge,CourtsGare required toSaeonly whethera Egima faciecaseexist$.Theyarenotexpected toanalyse theevidencein detailatthatstage.Andlookingta thematerialonrecord,itcannotbesaid that thereisno prima‘facieevidencein thiscase.making to tbacontinuingnatureof theo£fence thechargealsocannotbesaid to he vagueo15.Thisrevision petitionis.therefore,dismiseeé.‘L##r #7:?”’{iisw;\JUDGEaA-2d1999
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…