Mamta vs State & Mangat Ram on 2 September, 2016

2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
submitted that the respondent No.2, present in the Court has been
identified to be the Complainant/First-informant of the FIR in question
by SI P.S. Rawat.
3. The factual matrix of the present case is on the allegation that
that the complainant was falsely implicated and held in custody in a
FIR by his daughter-in-law. Upon being released from police custody,
the complainant requested SHO Gandhi Nagar to send two constables
to assist him to his house. Upon reaching his house, the complainant

Crl.M.C. 2586/2016 Page 1 of 8
saw that his house lay unlocked and all the articles as listed in his
statement to the Police were missing from his house.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply