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

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS