Does quash petition valid on CrPC-125 case

Abuse of the process of the court is the ground for quashing.Is there any?

SKJ is totally correct. Our country is a quack country.  Every one gives medical advice.  Every one gives legal advice.  This Jogeshwar is one such quack.

"Quash is most misunderstood"

The thread starter wants to know what is understood.Pleaseelucidate.

2".normally quash nort possible unless you can prove that no case is made out in pleadings."

Normally such issues are taken up in preliminary objections to be considered alongwith all issues and not separately for "quashing".If not so, please post citations.

@hema

"This Jogeshwar is one such quack."

Thank you.Are you victimized by any such quackery by me? people use screen names in forums. I use my real name all through.

Mr siv,

yes quash possible. post your complains in very short , it will help us to determine.

SC judgement is there in regard to guideline for quash. a few days back some one posted it here.

others you try on google search by the words 'quash'.

Abuse of the process of the court is the ground for quashing.Is there any? - mr. jogeshwar.

IT IS VERY CORRECT.

normally quash not possible unless you can prove that no case is made out in pleadings - MR. SKJ

IT IS ALSO CORRECT.

DIFFRENCE OF LANGUAGE IS THERE. SO FAR I REMEMBER BOTH ARE PART OF THAT JUDGEMENT.

Mr tripathis and all other friends like him should immediately resist the persons who are using filthy language on this site. If the person is instantly confronted and discouraged to post insulting out burts against others it will be a great help.

- BY MR SKJ.

MR SKJ AND MS HEMA PL FOIIOW MR SKJ'S ADVICE.

ATTACK ON MR JOGESHWAR TOTALY UN WANTED. MOREOVER HE IS RIGHT.

quack is a person who is not qualified but give professional advice.

yes.  in our country every thing is permissible.  people sit on pavements and sell plant roots in the name of "ayurvedic medicine" to treat the terminally ill cancer  patients.  it is their fundamental right to do that profession. medical council of india does nothing.   i saw the same thing in this legal profession.  only throw advice and do not become accountable.  i saw some of these quacks give advice to the husbands to file restitution of conjugal rights to evade maintenance.  when wife comes with suitcase in the court to restitute conjugal rights, these ill-advisers are no where to be seen.  advisers must be accountable.

@tigrania,

do not worry about my going behind the bars.  i am ready for that.  but i will take a lot of honourable members of this forum along with me (but different cells, because i am  a woman and they are men) for using abusive language against women who are exercising their legal rights.

MS. HEMA, YOU JUST JOIN TODAY, AND HAVE GOT SO MUCH KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE THREADS, WHICH SEEMS  THAT YOU ARE ALREADY A MEMBER OF LCI AND IT IS YOUR ANOTHER ACCOUNT.

IF YOU HAVE COROUGE, YOU COMPLAIN AGAINST ME, TO NCW (NATIONAL COMMISION FOR WOMEN), I MUST ATTEND IT AND IN PRESENCE OF YOU, -  WILL SHOW THEM, HOW LCI FOROUM MISUSE BY SO CALLED FAMINEST.

MS.HEMA,

DON'T FORGET THAT MEN ARE EQUALLY RESPECTABLE AS WOMEN.

Dear All,

Here is my grounds to approach the high court on the order passed by the same high court.

1. Family Court failed to make findings on the counter grounds of the respondent.
2. Family court failed to make findings on the docuements filed by the respondent as part of the counter.
3. Family court did not made findings on the ground saying that wife CrPC-125 petition alleged allegations are 100% different from police investiagtion report on her compalnt U/s 498A IPC on the ground of cruelty and harassment which is the only ground to file CrPC-125 and as per CrPC-125 affidavit none of the the incidents occurence attracting cruelty were revealed in police investiagtion report reveals either police investiagtion report is cooked or this petition is cooked and the alleged allegations in the CrPC-125 were not supported by the wife parents while they gave statements before the police during the police investiagtion in her compalint U/s 498A IPC on cruelty.

Quash attracting points:

1. Allegations were made with malafide intension no evidence is on reocrd ans as per wife parents no such incidents mentioned in CrPC-125 were taken place on cruelty.
2. Wife lived with husaband for the duration of one month at the same time wife given details saying that husband left her alone at house for more than months days which is impratical on this earth.
3. As per 498A case witnesses and the complainant in-laws were never lived with wife in matrimonial home whereas as per CrPC-125 case in-laws were with wife and ill-treated in matrimonial home reveals lies made by the wife and this attracts perjury.

Please comment on this story.

please see if the ollowing helps.

"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002

Decided On: 03.12.2009

Appellants: Dalip Singh
Vs.
Respondent: State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges:
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.

Disposition:
Appeal dismissed

ORDER
1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e., 'Satya' (truth) and 'Ahimsa' (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral Dart of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do no hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."