Crpc Section 47 in Hindi | Search of place entered by person sought to be arrested | Section 47 Crpc

IPC playlist की सभी विडिओ यहां देखे 👇

Keep Support Us:-

My new channel

some more videos of this channel

#pdf_judgement_download #supremecourtkafaisla #supremecourtjudgement #indianlawinhindi #hamarakanoon #kanoonigyan #IPC #Crpc #legalhelpdesk #legalhelpinhindi

Important Keywords:-

[margaretrahul]

Thank you ma'am for making the video in Hindi and your way of teaching just wow 😮😊

[sureshrathore]

Medam ji is judjment ko explain kare section ke anusar do kes sath sem fect par nahi chal sakte ..jese 498a oar ghrelu hinsa Pradesh High Court
Dr. Vijay Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh ... on 24 February, 2014
1 dr. vijay solanki & ors. vs.
state of m.p. & anr.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SEAT AT JABALPUR
M.Cr.C. No.3493/2012
DR. VIJAY SOLANKI & TWO OTHERS
VS.
THE STATE OF M.P. & ANOTHER
Present: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.

Shri Anil Lala, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Sameer Chille, learned Govt. Adv. for Non
applicant No.1 State.
Non-applicant No.2 appears in person.

Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No
ORDER
( 26 -2-2014 ) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been
filed by the applicants seeking quashment of a criminal case registered against them vide Crime
No.8242/2009 for offences under Section 498-A and Section 34 of IPC and pending in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jabalpur.
2 dr. vijay solanki & ors. vs. state of m.p. & anr.
2. Applicant No.1 is the father of applicant No.2 and applicant No.3 is the mother of applicant No.2.
Applicant No.2 and non applicant No.2 are Advocates registered with the Bar Council of Madhya
Pradesh and are practising lawyers in Jabalpur.
3. They were married to each other in accordance to the Hindu religious rights and cumstoms on
28.4.2011 and it is the case of the applicants herein that the marital life of the parties were not
smooth and making allegations against the non applicant No.2 to the effect that she wanted to live
separately and was insisting that applicant No.2 stay away from his parents, was creating all sorts of
problem in married life and finally it is said that she left the house of the applicants on 20th August,
2007 and started living separately. Repeated efforts made by the applicants having failed it is stated
that the applicant No.2 filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for
restitution of Conjugal rights vide Annexure A/1 on 4.10.2008. It is said that on receipt of the
Dr. Vijay Solanki vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh ... on 24 February, 2014