Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application for quashing of the complaint filed by a 21-year-old daughter and an 8-year-old son against their parents, alleging physical abuse and restrictions on their use of mobile phones and watching TV during the COVID lockdown period in 2021, a single-judge bench of Vivek Rusia, J., stayed the proceedings before the trial court and imposed costs of ₹1,000 on respondent due to lack of proper authorization by the respondent’s counsel.
The Court noted that the counsel for the private respondent had not filed a Vakalatnama (authorization) on behalf of the respondent, which was revealed only after the matter had been heard for more than 15 minutes. The Court expressed that had this information been disclosed earlier, the matter might not have been heard at that time. The Court stayed the trial court proceeding and imposed a cost of ₹1,000/- to be deposited into the account of the President and Secretary of the High Court Employees Union due to lack of proper authorization by the respondent’s counsel.
[Ajay Chouhan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 5092, Decided on 25-07-2024]
With inputs from Press
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Madhusudan Dwivedi, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Mukesh Sharma – Public Prosecutor, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Shri Shailendra Dixit, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2
