R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab on 25 March, 1960

Posted on July 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down three categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction could and should be exercised to quash proceedings:

(i) where there was a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint did not make out the offence alleged; and
(iii)where either there was no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly failed to prove the charge.

Conclusion:

It is not a case where the appellant can justly contend that on the face of the record the charge levelled against him is unsustainable.

R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960

Citation: [1960 AIR 862], [1960 SCR (3) 311], [(1960) 3 SCR 388], [1960 CRLJ SC 1239], [1960 CRILJ 239], [1961 AWR 31 49], [1960 AIR SC 866]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1033301/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab10e4b014971140b8c1

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

Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014

Posted on July 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Awesome judgment from Justice J.B.PARDIWALA, at Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. Excellent analysis and dissection of cunning knife’s mind.

Funny Anecdote #1:

Establishing Jurisdiction:

The sum and substance of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife, but as usual, all other family members have been roped in as accused persons. The applicant No.2, Dipikaben, is the wife of the applicant No.1’s brother. I am told that Dipikaben is a widow and she is residing independently at Padra of District Baroda. Dipikaben has a daughter aged about 20 years. The applicant No.3 Hetalben is the niece of the applicant No.1, and is residing at her matrimonial home at Gotri. The applicant No.3 got married in the year 2006, and before her marriage, was residing at Delhi. The applicants Nos. 4 and 5 are the husband and wife, and both are residing at Delhi. The applicant No.4 is one of the brothers of the applicant No.1. The applicant No.6, who is the sister of the applicant No.1, is residing at her matrimonial home at Baroda.

Funny Anecdote #2:

Delay in filing Complaint/FIR:

It appears on a plain reading of the FIR that on her own admission, she had stayed at her matrimonial home upto the year 2004, and thereafter, she left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental home. The respondent No.2 lodged the F.I.R after a period of four years thereafter i.e. in 2009.

Legal Point #1:

When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

One more:

Although the respondent No.2 is much more annoyed with her husband, with an obvious motive, has arrayed all the close relatives of her husband in the FIR. The Police also seems to have recorded stereo-type statements of the witnesses who are none other than the parents and other relatives of the respondent No.2 and has filed a charge-sheet.

Legal Point #3

Thus, it could be seen from the above that the apex Court has noticed the tendency of the married women roping in all the relatives of her husband in such complaints only with a view to harass all of them, though they may not be even remotely involved in the offence alleged.

One more here

In all cases where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498-A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No F.I.R is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC.

Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014

Kumar Kamalbabu Bhatt & 2 Vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 January, 2016

Posted on July 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Justice J.B.PARDIWALA in this judgment bins the vague and general allegations in the 498A case and quashed the FIR on the accused.

Funny anecdotes:

From Para 3,

It appears that the first informant holds a degree of Bachelor of Engineering.

….

I take notice of a very curious allegation in the First Information Report that the in-laws forced the daughter-in-law to do her post graduation i.e. Master of Engineering. It appears that the first informant did complete her Masters in Engineering.

….

As usual, soon after the marriage, matrimonial problems cropped up between the husband and the wife.

From Para 4,

For some reason or the other, the first informant thought fit to take up the issue with the Police and left the matrimonial home on 3rd March, 2013. She thought fit to lodge the FIR on 11th November, 2014.

Kumar Kamalbabu Bhatt & 2 Vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 January, 2016

An earlier judgment from same wise judge, which he quoted in this judgment is here.

State Of Orissa Vs Sharat Chandra Sahu & Anr on 8 October, 1996

Posted on July 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment held that,

From Paras 10, 11

10. Sub-section (4) of this Section clearly provides that where the case relates to two offences of which one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offence or offences are non-cognizable.
11. Sub-section (4) creates a legal fiction and provides that although a case may comprise of several offences of which some are cognizable and others are not, it would not be open to the police to investigate the cognizable offences only and omit the non-cognizable offences. Since the whole case (comprising of cognizable and non-cognizable offences) is to be treated a cognizable, the police had no option but to investigate the whole of the case and to submit a chargesheet in respect of all the offences, cognizable or noncognizable both, provided it is found by the police during investigation that the offences appear, prima facie, to have been committed.

State Of Orissa Vs Sharat Chandra Sahu & Anr on 8 October, 1996

Ushaben Vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors on 23 March, 2012

Posted on July 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court has in this judgment held that,

Legal Point #1:

The above provisions indicate that whereas Section 190(1) empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence, upon receiving complaint of facts which constitute such offence; upon police report of such facts; upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his knowledge that such offence has been committed, Section 198 which relates to prosecution of offences against marriage brings in the concept of complaint by an aggrieved person and Section 198(1)(c) explains how far the scope of term ‘aggrieved person’ can be extended in the context of offence under Section 494 of the IPC.

Legal Point #2:

A conjoint reading of the above provisions makes it clear that a complaint under Section 494 of the IPC must be made by the aggrieved person. Section 498A does not fall in Chapter XX of the IPC. It falls in Chapter XXA. Section 198A which we have quoted hereinabove, permits a court to take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 498A upon a police report of facts which constitute offence. It must be borne in mind that all these provisions relate to cognizance of the offence by the court.

Therefore,

Above provisions, lead us to conclude that if a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report.

In addition to CrPC 155(4), legislature brought in CrPC 198A specific to IPC 498A.

Ushaben Vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors on 23 March, 2012

Rejilal Vs State Of Kerala on 10 Frebruary, 2017

Posted on July 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that,

Legal Point:

Section 198(1) of the Cr.P.C provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the IPC except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Section 493 comes under Chapter XX of the IPC. Therefore cognizance could be taken only upon a complaint. Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C which defines ‘complaint’ specifically excludes a police report.

Finally,

if a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of offence under section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report. That is not the case in the present case. Here section 420 IPC, a cognizable offence, was shown in the FIR and the charge-sheet without any basis whatsoever. You cannot bypass section 198 of the Cr.P.C by simply adding a cognizable offence in the FIR and the charge-sheet without any basis as was done in the present case. Section 420 IPC was shown in the present case only to get over the bar under section 198 (1) of the Cr.P.C. That ‘smartness’ cannot be permitted. Magistrates shall be very careful and cautious when they are called upon to take cognizance of an offence falling under Chapter XX of the IPC upon a police report. The Magistrate shall ascertain whether the investigating officer included a cognizable offence in the FIR, charge-sheet et cetera only to get over the bar under section 198 (1) of the Cr.P.C. It is crystal clear in the present case that section 420 of the IPC is shown only to bypass the bar under section 198 (1) of the Cr.P.C.

Rejilal Vs State Of Kerala on 10 Frebruary, 2017

IPC 493 – Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage

Posted on July 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

P.Sangeetha Vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 June, 2018

Posted on July 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held that

Therefore, there is enough material to indicate that the petitioner herein had consciously got married to said Feroz Khan with full knowledge that the marriage between the first accused and the second respondent is very much in subsistence.

And…

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report. This decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a clear answer to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court cannot take cognizance of both the offences under Sections 494 as well as 498 of IPC in a single proceeding. This Court rejects the contention of the petitioner that the registration of F.I.R is illegal.

Biased judiciary favoring women,

However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a woman, this Court directs that the trial magistrate shall insist on the appearance of the petitioner herein only for answering the charges and at the time of examination of witnesses under Section 313 of Cr.PC and at the time of pronouncing judgement. Except the aforesaid occasions, on other hearing dates the petitioner can be permitted to be represented through counsel.

P.Sangeetha Vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 June, 2018

Surya Prakash Vs Rachna on 10 October, 2017

Posted on July 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in this judgment held that,

If there is any instance of domestic violence, for which an affirmative or prohibitory order is passed under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the provisions of Section 31 of the Act can be invoked. Non-payment of maintenance allowance is also a breach of ‘protection order’ or ‘interim protection order’. The order passed in Sunil @ Sonu vs. Sarita Chawla (Smt.), reported in 2009 (5) MPHT 319 is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Surya Prakash Vs Smt. Rachna on 10 October, 2017

Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014

Posted on July 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in this judgment for recovering maintenance amount, has held that

From Para 5,

Therefore, it is abundantly clear that basically the learned Magistrate has to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of maintenance either final or interim. Subsection (2) of Section 28 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be pressed into service when there is no provision available for implementing a particular order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. If the procedure is available in Code of Criminal Procedure, that is necessarily to be followed.

From Para 9,

As such the first option available to the Magistrate was to issue a warrant for levying fine. If whole of the amount was recovered by adopting the procedure under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the question of putting the defaulter in prison did not arise. In case amount was not recovered or part of it was recovered and part of it was not recovered, then the question would have arisen as to how much sentence should be imposed on the defaulter as per the provision laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stage of issuing warrant comes only after sentencing and not before that.

Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: July 2018

R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab on 25 March, 1960

Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014

Kumar Kamalbabu Bhatt & 2 Vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 January, 2016

State Of Orissa Vs Sharat Chandra Sahu & Anr on 8 October, 1996

Ushaben Vs Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors on 23 March, 2012

Rejilal Vs State Of Kerala on 10 Frebruary, 2017

IPC 493 – Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage

P.Sangeetha Vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 June, 2018

Surya Prakash Vs Rachna on 10 October, 2017

Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014