9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 2030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nav Mukerji And Praveen Swarup ORDER 1. The accused-appellant not having succeeded in convincing the High Court that the criminal proceeding under Sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act instituted against him ought to be quashed has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 3. What would required to be taken notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.07.2005 except for an incident that is alleged to have occurred on 27.08.2005. 4. It is the appellant's case that on 27.08.2005 he had left India. In support of the said claim he had filed before the High court his passport and immigration details which would go to establish the said fact. The High Court brushed aside the same by saying that the claim raised has to be decided on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into the passport documents and immigration papers which have been brought on record before this Court by the accused-appellant. The said papers do indicate that on the date in question i.e. 27.08.2005 the accused-appellant was not in India. At no point of time either before the High Court or before this Court any dispute has been raised with regard to the said fact. The complainant had not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
