Bombay High Court has concluded that the petitioner’s discharge petition deserves allowance as none of the allegations made under various sections in the case does not hold good to continue the proceedings.
Month: June 2018
Amit Kapoor Vs Ramesh Chander & Anr on 13 September, 2012
In the judgment of Apex Court, a Quash order by the High Court is set aside.
Thus, we are of the considered view that the finding returned by the High Court suffers from an error of law. It has delved into the field of appreciation and evaluation of the evidence which is beyond the jurisdiction, either revisional or inherent, of the High Court under Sections 397 and 482 of the Code.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
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
Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 26 April 2000
Supreme court held that one should discourage the tendency to rope in all relations in dowry cases.
For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.
Citations: [2000 JT SC 5 223], [2000 ACR SC 2 1263], [2000 SCC CRI 0 935], [2000 EASTCRIC 2 698], [2000 RCR CRIMINALINAL 2 695], [2000 SCC CR 0 935], [2000 RCR CRI 2 696], [2000 SCC 5 207], [2000 RCR CRI 2 695], [2000 CCR 2 156], [2000 AIR SC 2324 1], [2000 PLJR 3 68], [2000 ALLMR CRI 0 1180], [2000 MLJ CRI 1 844], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 2 695], [2000 SLT 4 162], [2002 CLJ 0 2993], [2000 SCR 3 662], [2000 ACC 41 3], [2000 ALD CRI 2 467], [2002 SCC 5 207], [2000 CRI LJ 2993], [2000 LW CRL 2 660], [2000 JIC 2 353], [2000 AIR SC 0 2093], [2000 SRJ 10 330], [2000 ALD CRL 2 467], [2000 SCALE 3 429], [2000 KERLT 2 42], [2000 CRLLJ 2993], [2000 CRLJ 0 2993], [2000 RENTCR 2 695], [2000 AIR SC 2324], [2002 RCR CRIMINAL 2 695], [2000 JCRIC 2 665], [2000 DMC SC 1 645], [2000 SCC 5 2007], [2000 SUPREME 3 554], [2000 CRIMES 2 213]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1263837/
Taramani Parakh Vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 16 March, 2015
In this judgment of Apex Court, Justice AK Goel held that there are allegation against accused in FIR which need to be dealt with during trial but quashing same by Hon’ble High Court is set aside.
Bhura Ram And Ors Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008
Another simple Supreme Court judgment clarifying the jurisdiction that the magistrate can exercise.
The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009
Simple case on allegations not meeting the criterion on IPC 498A is confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this 482 quash judgment.
When we examine the facts of the present case particularly the FIR and the charge sheet we find that there is no such allegation either in the FIR or in the charge sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation(a). There is no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause the Respondent No. 2 to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her life. The ingredient to constitute an offence under explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC are not at all mentioned either in FIR or in charge sheet and in absence thereof, no case is made out. Therefore, explanation (a) as found in Section 498A IPC is clearly not attracted in the present case.
We, therefore, now proceed to examine as to whether the case would fall under explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC constituting cruelty of the nature as mentioned in explanation (b). In order to constitute cruelty under the said provision there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. When the allegation made in the FIR and charge sheet is examined in the present case in the light of the aforesaid provision, we find that no prima facie case even under the aforesaid provision is made out to attract a case of cruelty.
Citations : [2010 SCC CRI 1 1412], [2009 AIOL 863], [2009 SCC 14 466], [2009 SUPREME 5 281], [2009 ANJ SC SUPP 2 55], [2009 JT 8 617], [2009 SCR 9 1187], [2009 SCALE 9 70], [2009 AIC SC 80 192], [2009 ECRN SC 3 818]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/437533/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aec9e4b0149711414c59
Index of Quash judgments is here.
S.Muralidharan Vs State by Inspector of Police on 3 May, 2018
Madras High Court delivered this judgment dismissing the revision petition filed by accused to set aside a charge made against him.
20. The charge should contain the name of the offence, if the law which creates the offence gives any specific name or if no specific name is given, the definition of the offence must be stated. The law and section against which the offence is said to have been committed to be mentioned in the charge. Wherever necessary, the time and place of offence and the person against whom the offence committed should be mentioned. If necessary, the manner in which the offence committed should be mentioned. The Court while frame charge should take all endeavour that the accused against whom the charge is framed shall have sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged. The charge so framed shall not mislead the accused. The omission or error in the content of the charge shall not be material, leading to failure of justice.
Navdeep Singh Vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 19 March, 2018
In this judgment from Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was held that after this court has gone through the FIR in which, no specific allegation has been leveled qua demand of dowry, nor was such evidence brought before the court in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Hence revision is rejected.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Soma Chakravarty vs State Through CBI on 10 May, 2007 (S B Sinha)
Justice S.B. Sinha has the follow judgment on the Soma Chakravarty case.
Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the court must come to a prima facie finding that there exists some materials therefor. Suspicion cannot alone, without anything more, it is trite, form the basis therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge
Here is the judgment from Justice Markandey Katju in this same case.
Soma Chakravarty vs State Through CBI on 10 May, 2007 (M Katju)
Justice Markandey Katju of Apex Court has, in this judgment of Soma Chakravarty case, affirmed that…
if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.
Here is the judgment from Justice S.B.Sinha in this same case.
