AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 150 wordsWe have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at some length.
Having perused the impugned order [Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi, Cr. MMO No. 230 of 2014. D/d. 9.4.2015 (H.P.)], we are satisfied, that the same is based on the two decisions rendered by this Court, firstly, Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299, and secondly, Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.) and others, 2000(3) SCC 180. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the explanation under sub-section (1) thereof, has been consistently interpreted by this Court, for the last two decades. The aforesaid consistent view has been followed by the High Court while passing the impugned order.
For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no justification whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.