178. Place of inquiry or trial.
(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed, partly in one local area and partly in another, or
This judgment declares a criminal case of filed at a wrong jurisdiction and permits transfer of case to another court with proper jurisdiction to proceed with case.
One piece of valuable information is
We find that the offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon the respondent no. 2 “continued unabated” on account of no effort having been made by the appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the appellants over the telephone. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court does not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding the threats said to have been given by the appellants over the telephone.
One thing to note is the judge is directing to effectively transfer case on court with proper jurisdiction.
However, we consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice to permit the Court at Ambikapur to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case arising out of F.I.R. No. 798 of 2005 dated 31.12.2005, in exercise of powers conferred on this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The high court judgment which was appealed over in this SC judgment is here.
Another such previous wonderful judgment is available here.
This is one of the judgments wherein a criminal case filed at wrong jurisdiction is directed to be transferred to a court with proper jurisdiction!! Interesting !!
We, therefore, are of the opinion that, interest of justice would be subserved, while setting aside the order of the High Court, if in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct transfer of the criminal case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. We accordingly do so.
Another landmark judgment from Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat as part of a three-judge bench.
Intro
Legal points enumerated by their Lordships are
The reportable version of judgment is here.
Citations : [2009 SCC 14 244], [2010 SCC CRI 1 1349], [2009 ECRN SC 2 1288], [2009 AIOL 261], [2009 JT 13 666], [2009 SCALE 5 1], [2009 SCR 3 326]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1091787/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd328607dba63d7e6c4d8
Patna High Court delivered this judgment based on the mental cruelty the Knife levelled on the husband.
A variety of instances to establish mental cruelty by Knife were vividly brought out in this case.
Key points
In Para 6,
Appellant/wife levelled frivolous and bald allegation against his mother of having illicit relation with his Uncle. Mother of Respondent/husband felt very embarrassed, insulted and pained by such false and reckless allegation.
In Para 7,
On 16.06.1996 Respondent/husband and his mother went to the house of his in-laws where the mother of the husband tried to make her understand not to leave matrimonial home and if there is any problem she must tell family members and hearing this the Appellant/wife became so much furious that she pushed her Mother-in-Law and she fell down causing head injury. On this ungraceful act people surrounded there and asked Appellant/wife about such irratic behaviour and she told that unless and untill Respondent/husband separates him from his family, she won’t enter her matrimonial home otherwise she will set her ablaze.
In Para 8,
Respondent/husband’s family was so much pressurized by the Appellant/wife that there was disruption in the joint family of Respondent/husband and he was allotted a separate share in the joint family property and Respondent/husband had to reside in a single room away from his joint family. A happy joint family was ruined and separated by cruel conduct of Appellant/wife.
In Para 9,
Since the Appellant/wife is daughter of policeman she is a spoiled child, idiot and obstinate and respondent/husband found him self helpless in house of his inlaws and had to tolerate all sorts of insult and humiliation.
Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 clearly explain the cruel behavior of the Knife.
In Para 15,
After sometime Defendant/wife refused to cohabit with plaintiff and never permitted physical relation with her and failed to perform her marital obligation as wife and has withdrawn from society of her husband.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Wonderful judgment from the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby it is declared that filing a false complaint by Knife on husband and his family constitutes cruelty and this is sufficient ground a marriage can be dissolved.
The prosecution tried these tactics to counter the appeal from Husband
Hon’ble two-judge bench has destroyed this angle in Para 5.
The Respondent-Wife has admitted in her cross-examination that she did not mention all the incidents on which her Complaint is predicated, in her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It is not her case that she had actually narrated all these facts to the Investigating Officer, but that he had neglected to mention them. This, it seems to us, is clearly indicative of the fact that the criminal complaint was a contrived afterthought. We affirm the view of the High Court that the criminal complaint was “ill advised”.
Final nail in the coffin:
Prosecution: the filing of the criminal complaint has not been pleaded in the petition itself by Husband
Supreme Court: the criminal complaint was filed by the wife after filing of the husband’s divorce petition, and being subsequent events could have been looked into by the Court.
This is also called as Counter blast.
In Para 7,
We unequivocally find that the Respondent-Wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty.
Citations: [2014 SUPREME 8 36], [2015 JLJR SC 1 114], [2014 JT 13 8], [2015 SCC CRI 3 400], [2015 RCR CIVIL SC 1 38], [2014 AIOL 702], [2015 ALLCC 90 808], [2015 ALLMR SC 2 435], [2015 ALR 108 742], [2015 AWC SC 1 80], [2015 SCSUPPL CHN 1 233], [2015 LW 4 671], [2015 OLR 1 267], [2015 PLJR 1 126], [2015 PLR 179 435], [2014 SCC 16 34], [2015 SCC CIV 3 415], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 915], [2015 AIC 146 107]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175889126/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b12be691cb22da6d57e4
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
This is a wonderful judgement by the Apex Court with many useful legal points in regards to the modification of maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code.
Legal points observed
This is the Divorce case of famous musician Mandolin U Shrinivas. Supreme Court affirmed that he faced mental cruelty at the acts of his Knife. Alimony of 50 Lakhs is also ordered by Justice Dipak Misra.
Shortly after, he died from a failed liver transplant operation in 2014.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
This judgment of Alimony enhancement is from Andhra Pradesh High Court
This Supreme Court judgment affirmed that Impotency of Husband is a valid ground that causes Physical and Mental cruelty on Knife and I also valid for maintenance under section 125(3).
Bad Behavior has blocked 595 access attempts in the last 7 days.
