Counter Cases/RTI

Syed Nazim Husain Vs. The Additional Principal Judge

Court: High Court Of Allahabad Bench: JUSTICE A. Mateen Syed Nazim Husain Vs. The Additional Principal Judge Family Court & another on 9.1.2003 Law Point: Perjury application must be decided first before proceeding with the case.     JUDGEMENT   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. Since a very trivial point is involved I propose […]

Syed Nazim Husain Vs. The Additional Principal Judge
Counter Cases/RTI Shonee Kapoor

Syed Nazim Husain Vs. The Additional Principal Judge

Shonee Kapoor, men's rights activist and legal consultant in India

Written and analysed by Shonee Kapoor

Legal Consultant, Author & Men's Rights Activist

Court: High Court Of Allahabad

Bench: JUSTICE A. Mateen

Syed Nazim Husain Vs. The Additional Principal Judge Family Court & another on 9.1.2003

Law Point:
Perjury application must be decided first before proceeding with the case.

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A.

Since a very trivial point is involved I propose to dispose of the petition at this initial stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the order dated 24.10.2002 be quashed.

 

From the order dated 24.10.2002 it comes out that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court on the application, moved by the petioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. instead of disposing of the same had postponed disposal of the said application and ordered that said application may be disposed of after evidence is recorded in case No. 566/89.

In my view, if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.

In the circumstances, I dispose of the present application and direct the Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with law.

With the above observations the petition is disposed of finally.

 

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

 

You may contact me for legal consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us

 

Tags

Counter Cases/RTI Judgement 498a counter cases court dowry judgement perjury rti shonee kapoor

Share

Shonee Kapoor, men's rights activist and legal consultant in India

Shonee Kapoor

Indian men's rights activist, legal consultant and author focused on matrimonial law, 498A, maintenance, child custody, parental alienation and gender-neutral laws. He is not an advocate or lawyer.

Share Your Thoughts

Comments are moderated before publication.