This is the order by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which was set aside by the hon’ble Supreme Court here.Varala Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana on 28 March, 2016
This is classic case of not application of mind all all levels of a criminal case proceedings, until the Hon’ble Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that the allegations in this case do not attract ingredients of IPC 498A or IPC 406 and thereby quashed the entire proceedings for good.Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017
The AP High Court order is here.
A detailed judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, categorically held that police at Nalagarh had no jurisdiction, as has/had been held hereinabove, proceedings if any pending before Courts at Nalagarh cannot be allowed to sustain and thereby the FIR dated 7.10.2014 as well as consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside
And the knife is at liberty to initiate action, if any, against the petitioners, on account of allegations contained in impugned FIR but at Jallandhar(Pb), either by lodging fresh FIR or by pursuing complaint filed by her at Women Cell Jallandhar.Yadwinder Singh & Others Vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018
Another judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that no case is made out against any of the appellants and the pendency of the proceedings against them before the Magistrate is an abuse of process of court. And thereby quashed the High Court order and the appellants are discharged in terms of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
K.Ramakrishna & Ors Vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 22 September, 2000
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held in this revision order, that when the impugned order was not an order passed, as ex parte, the learned magistrate was required to hold as inquiry in a DV Case and then should have recorded his finding (to grant interim relief or not).
Sri Monojit Banerjee Vs Smt Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016
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
In this judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that a pending appeal in a divorce decree does not make second marriage null and void.
Anurag Mittal Vs Shaily Mishra Mittal on 24 August, 2018
Hon’ble Apex Court has in this judgment, held that giving repeated threats of suicide to husband and making suicide attempts for no reason, or even one such event was sufficient for the Appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is needless to add that such threats or acts constitute cruelty. And the knife also wanted the Appellant to get separated from his family.
Narendra Vs K.Meena on 6 October, 2016
In this quash judgment under CrPC 482 from Hon’ble Supreme Court, the main contention of IPC 406 was not even entertained on the distant relative of husband.
Kailash Chandra Agrawal & Anr Vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 16 September, 2014
Hon’ble Supreme Court granted divorce to husband on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by knife who is a patient of Bipolar Affective Disorder (A.K.A Chronic Paramoid Schizophrenia). Permanent alimony is granted in this case, God knows why.
Pankaj Mahajan Vs Dimple @ Kajal on 30 September, 2011
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
In this sensationalized case of murder of a woman called as Jessica Lall, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the presence of accused was well established by ocular (eye) witnesses.
From Para 13,
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 April, 2010
The following principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with appeals, particularly, against the order of acquittal:
(i) There is no limitation on the part of the Appellate Court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found.
(ii) The Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal can review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions.
(iii) The Appellate Court can also review the Trial Court’s conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
(iv) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to marshal the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal.
(v) An order of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference.
(vi) While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the
Appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether finding of the Trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly, erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the Appellate Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of
any of the above infirmities, it can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion.
(vii) When the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of Ballistic Experts etc., the Appellate Court is competent to reverse the decision of the Trial Court depending on the materials placed.
Wanna read the wikipedia page? Go here.