9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The applicant wife has preferred this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr. P.C. being aggrieved by the order dt. 30.8.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Khategaon District Dewas, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 2/2011 whereby her application filed for amendment in the principal application filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. has been dismissed. Applicant Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... premises and prayed for allowing this revision. 2. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid argument Shri Vikas Yadav, appearing Counsel for the respondent by justifying the impugned order argued that impugned case being criminal case the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not applicable and in such premises, the Trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application. He fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the impugned order. 4. It is a trite law that strict rules of the pleadings are not applicable to the case under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. Under such provision only application is required and after filing such an application if any subsequent event comes in existence then there is no bar under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. to place such fact on record either by the separate application or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision of such Code could not be applied strictly but whenever the specific provision in this regard is not available in the special enactment then in that position, Court may adopt the principal laid down by the Apex Court either in the civil case or in the criminal case. In such premises, if the present matter is examined in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of P. Venka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
