(Jagdish Singh Khehar, C.J. and D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.)
Manoj Kumar ____________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Champa Devi _____________________________________ Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10137/2015, decided on April 6, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at some length.
2. Having perused the impugned order, 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), 2000 (3) SCC 952. 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.
3. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no justification whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.
4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
———
