Section 561A Penal Code (XLV of 1860), section 161/3, petition to stop proceedings against all the accused, including the petitioners, was that all the policemen were subordinate to the complainant party with high authority and misconduct. They were restricted. 4 days and received huge sums of money, the petitioner's case could not be separated from the case of the other accused, but said that the co-accused was neither imposed nor issued any notice of proceedings, Direct complaint, constitutional petition, acid contradiction FIR filed by the complainant against the applicant, the prosecution's case was fatal, the pendence of the case against the applicant revealed that the complainant was a The habit was guilty as some cases are pending against him in the courts on behalf of Malala duties and complainants. Its real purpose was clear. Show that a false complaint was made against the police officers along with the applicant process, the case against the applicant did not have legs to stand before the trial court and finally if the trial court proceeded on the applicant's case. This will be the end of his case as the complainant and his witnesses contradicted the documentary evidence that was brought on record in the form of a constitutional petition, through the FIR and the direct complaint against the applicant, I was ordered to terminate
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
