Anil Kumar and anr. Vs. State

Anil Kumar and anr. vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 26, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/703545

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/703545
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 26, 2005
Case Number: Crl. Rev. P. 673 of 2004
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 302, 306 and 498A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anil Kumar and anr.

Advocate Rajesh Kumar, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate V.K. Malik, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 302, 306 and 498A
Reported In: 122(2005)DLT418; II(2005)DMC377

Excerpt

- orderr.s. sodhi, j.crl. m.a. 9778/2004:1. delay condoned. application disposed of.crl. rev. p. 673/2004 & crl. m.a. 9776/2004.crl. rev. p. 673/2004 is directed against the order of the additional sessions judge, delhi dated 4.6.2004 whereby the learned judge has framed a charge under section 498a/306/302/34, ipc.2. counsel submits that such charge cannot be framed since they are diametrically opposite.3. i have gone through the records and perused the order dated 4.7.2004 as also studied sections 306/302/34. obviously, counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that charge of 306 and 302/34 cannot be framed. particulars of charge are essential to be supplied while framing of charge in which case if kanta devi has committed suicide she cannot be murdered.4. in his view of the matter, the order dated 4.6.2004 is set aside. the trial court is directed to re-frame charges, if so made out, on the material available before it.5. with this crl. rev. p. 673/2004 is disposed of crl.m.a. 9776/2004 also stands disposed of.a copy of this order be given dusty to counsel for the petitioner.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.S. Sodhi, J.

Crl. M.A. 9778/2004:

1. Delay condoned. Application disposed of.

Crl. Rev. P. 673/2004 & Crl. M.A. 9776/2004.

Crl. Rev. P. 673/2004 is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 4.6.2004 whereby the learned Judge has framed a charge under Section 498A/306/302/34, IPC.

2. Counsel submits that such charge cannot be framed since they are diametrically opposite.

3. I have gone through the records and perused the order dated 4.7.2004 as also studied Sections 306/302/34. Obviously, Counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that charge of 306 and 302/34 cannot be framed. Particulars of charge are essential to be supplied while framing of charge in which case if Kanta Devi has committed suicide she cannot be murdered.

4. In his view of the matter, the order dated 4.6.2004 is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to re-frame charges, if so made out, on the material available before it.

5. With this Crl. Rev. P. 673/2004 is disposed of Crl.M.A. 9776/2004 also stands disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dusty to Counsel for the petitioner.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2005 Same Parties Anil Kumar and anr. vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 302, 306 and 498A

Criminal