Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Phool Chandra JaIn and ors. Vs. State of M.P.

Phool Chandra JaIn and ors. vs State of M.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 10, 1996
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/508160

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Misc. Cr. C. No. 1784 of 1996
Subject
Family;Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MADHYA PRADESH UCHCHA NYAYALAYA (KHAND NYAYPEETH KO APPEAL) ADHINIYAM (14 OF 2006)Section 2 & M.P. General Clauses Act, 1957, Section 12: [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, S.S. Jha & A.M. Sapre, JJ] Appeal to Division Bench against judgment of Single Judge - Application for restoration/revival of Letters Patent Appeal under Cla...

Key legal issue
Family;Criminal
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 438; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Phool Chandra JaIn and ors.

Advocate Surendra Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State of M.P.

Advocate G.S. Ahluwalia, D.G.A.

Legal References

Reported In
II(1996)DMC613

Excerpt

.....of the code of civil procedure would not be revived as 2005 adhiniyam does not provide for any such revival. a reading of section 12 of the m.p. general clauses act, 1957, would show that the legislature must expressly state that the repealed act is either wholly or partially revived. where an act is passed repealing a repealing enactment, it shall not be considered as reviving any enactment previously repealed unless words are added reviving that enactment. in the absence of any express or implicit provision in the 2005 adhiniyam providing for appeal from a judgment, decree or order passed by single judge under section 96 of c.p.c., to a division bench, by virtue of the repeal of the 1981 adhiniyam, appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent from a judgment and decree passed by single judge in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under section 96 of c.p.c., are not revived. - 5,000/- (rupess five thousand) each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of police officer arresting them, subject to the conditions that they shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when called upon to do so by the investigation officer and shall attend on all dates of hearing during trial, till it is finally disposed of.v.k. agrawal, j.1. they are heard finally.crime no. 6/1996 for offences punishable under section 498a, ipc r/w sections 3/4 of the dowry prohibition act has been registered against the accused/ petitioners by p.s. gopalganj, district sagar.2. the allegation is that complainant sunita lodged a report stating therein that her husband pawan kumar jain who is a engineer in the telecommunication department and the accused/petitioner demanded dowry and maltreated her. during the course of arguments, it was urged that the complainant sunita and her husband pawan kumar jain have mutually settled their differences amicably and have decided to live together.3. in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, petition for grant of anticipatroy bail is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioners in connection with offences registered vide crime no. 6/96 by p.s. gopal ganj (sagar) they shall be released forthwith on their furnishing a sum of rs. 5,000/- (rupess five thousand) each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of police officer arresting them, subject to the conditions that they shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when called upon to do so by the investigation officer and shall attend on all dates of hearing during trial, till it is finally disposed of.c.c. be given as per rules.

Full Judgment

V.K. Agrawal, J.

1. They are heard finally.

Crime No. 6/1996 for offences punishable Under Section 498A, IPC r/w Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered against the accused/ petitioners by P.S. Gopalganj, District Sagar.

2. The allegation is that complainant Sunita lodged a report stating therein that her husband Pawan Kumar Jain who is a Engineer in the Telecommunication Department and the accused/petitioner demanded dowry and maltreated her. During the course of arguments, it was urged that the complainant Sunita and her husband Pawan Kumar Jain have mutually settled their differences amicably and have decided to live together.

3. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, petition for grant of anticipatroy bail is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused/petitioners in connection with offences registered vide Crime No. 6/96 by P.S. Gopal Ganj (Sagar) they shall be released forthwith on their furnishing a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupess five thousand) each with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Police Officer arresting them, subject to the conditions that they shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigation Officer and shall attend on all dates of hearing during trial, till it is finally disposed of.

C.C. be given as per rules.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial