When once she attended before the Court and stated that she compromised the matter with the first respondent and had no objection to quash the first information report, she cannot rescile from her version. Once the willingness is communicated to this Court and when this Court in consideration thereof quashed the First Information Report, the issue cannot be reopened. She did not state before this Court that she would agree for compromise only if the first respondent marries her. She did not make any such statement when she appeared before the Court. Therefore, she is precluded from raising such a plea as a ground for recalling the order passed by this Court. Absolutely, I see no merits in the petition filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant.-2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

When once she attended before the Court
and stated that she compromised the matter with the first respondent and
had no objection to quash the first information report, she cannot rescile
from her version. Once the willingness is communicated to this Court and
when this Court in consideration thereof quashed the First Information
Report, the issue cannot be reopened.  She did not state before this Court
that she would agree for compromise only if the first respondent marries
her.  She did not make any such statement when she appeared before the 
Court.  Therefore, she is precluded from raising such a plea as a ground
for recalling the order passed by this Court.  Absolutely, I see no merits
in the petition filed by the petitioner/de facto complainant.-2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS