This helped me alot. Hope you will also find solace by reciting this 13 stanza stothram 9 times a day.
Month: September 2018
H. S. Bains Vs The State (Union Territory Of Chandigarh) on 10 October, 1980
In this landmark judgment from Supreme Court, it was held that.
Where the Magistrate, on receiving a complaint orders investigation under section 156(3) and receives a report under section 173 to the effect that no offence was disclosed against the accused, the Magistrate might either
(i) decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action or
(ii) he may take cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)(b) and issue process without being bound in any manner by the conclusion of the police or
(iii) he may take cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an enquiry under section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process as the case may be.
Law laid down,
Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 deals with information to the Police, and their powers to investigate. Sec. 156 (1) vests in an officer incharge of a Police Station the power to investigate any cognizable case, without the order of a Magistrate. Sec. 156(3) authorises a Magistrate, empowered under Sec. 190, to order an investigation as mentioned in Sec. 156(1). The provisions from Sec. 157 onwards are concerned with the power and procedure for investigation. Sec. 169 prescribes that if upon an investigation it appears to the officer incharge of the Police Station that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond (with or without sureties) to appear if and when required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of an offence on a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial. Sec. 170 prescribes that if upon investigation it appears to the officer incharge of the Police Station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of an offence on a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial. If the offence is bailable the officer shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed. Sec. 173(1) casts a duty upon the police officer to complete the investigation without unnecessary delay. Sec. 173(2) prescribes that as soon as the investigation is completed the officer incharge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of an offence on a police report, a report in the prescribed form stating the various particulars mentioned in that subsection.
Tail point
It is seen from the provisions to which we have referred in the preceding paragraphs that on receipt of a complaint a Magistrate has several courses open to him. He may take cognizance of the offence and proceed to record the statements of the complainant and the witnesses present under Sec. 200. Thereafter, if in his opinion there is no sufficient ground for proceeding he may dismiss the complaint under Sec. 203. If in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding he may issue process under Sec. 204. However, if he thinks fit, he may postpone the issue of process and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. He may then issue process if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding or dismiss the complaint if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding.
On the other hand, in the first instance, on receipt of a complaint, the Magistrate may, instead of taking
cognizance of the offence, order an investigation under Sec. 156(3). The police will then investigate and submit a report under Sec. 173(1). On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 190(1)(b) and straightaway issue process. This he may do irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report whether an offence has been made out or not. The Police report under Sec. 173 will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police and the conclusion drawn by the police therefrom. The Magistrate is not bound by the conclusions drawn by the Police and he may decide to issue process even if the Police recommend that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further. The Magistrate after receiving the Police report, may, without issuing process or dropping the proceeding decide to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed to record the statements upon oath of the complainant and the witnesses present under Sec. 200 Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter decide whether to dismiss the complaint or issue process. The mere fact that he had earlier ordered an investigation under Sec. 156(3) and received a report under Sec. 173 will not have the effect of total effacement of the complaint and therefore the Magistrate will not be barred from proceeding under Sections 200, 203 and 204. Thus, a Magistrate who on receipt of a complaint, orders an investigation under Sec. 156(3) and receives a police report under Sec. 173(1), may, thereafter, do one of three things: (1) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action; (2) he may take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 190(1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report: (3) he may take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Sec. 200 If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Sec. 202 if he thinks fit.
Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be.
Vasanti Dubey Vs State Of M.P. on 17 January, 2012
Supreme Court in this judgment has held that magistrate, when he disagrees with the final report submitted by Police, should follow the process from CrPC 200.
Injeti Venkata Rami Reddy Vs State Of A.P. 5 March, 2013
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that before issuing Non bailable warrants, magistrate has to exhaust the options of summons and bailable warrants to secure the presence of accuse.
Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 14 December, 2007
In this landmark quash judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that IPC 406 and IPC 498A is not made out on the parents of the husband and as such the case on them is quashed.
Highlights
Knife Name: Neetu
Husband Name: Ashutosh Misra
- He gave me no money for expenditure. When I left Bijnore he gave me only Rs.1/- only. I did not receive any phone from him till 7th November, 1994.
- He told me that he has no time to go to Cell and to bring me to Bijnore.
- talk to your father to give you Rs.50,000/- and VCR to bring with you.
- If you come here alone with the child, we will give you good beatings.
- Almost 2 weeks ago, Hira Lal informed me that my husband took away all my belongings with him at 4 A.M.
- she stated that, my father-in-law and sister-in-law clearly warned him that till the time I will not bring Rs.50,000/- cash and V.C.R. they will not keep me.
- In the charge-sheet, it has been recorded that despite issue of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the complainant and her father by the ASI, neither the complainant nor her father turned up to take back her Stridhan , which was alleged to be with the appellants. It has been noted that the complainant does not want to take back her Stridhan.
Law point from Para 10,
It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
From Para 19,
Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives.
Citations: [2007 SUPREME 8 405], [2008 SCC 2 561], [2008 CRLJ 0 1391], [2008 AIR SC 204], [2008 RCR CRI 1 336], [2008 SCC 1 65], [2007 STPL LE 0 39378], [2008 SCC CRI 1 507], [2008 AD SC 2 398], [2008 BLJR 56 753], [2008 MADLW CRL 2 955], [2008 ACC 60 694], [2008 SCC CRL 1 507], [2008 JT 1 20], [2008 LW CRL 2 955], [2008 ALL MR CRI 1360], [2008 ALT CRI 3 83], [2008 AIR SC 96], [2008 MAHLJ CRI 2 550], [2008 SCC CR 1 507], [2008 CRIMES 1 42], [2008 DRJ 100 3], [2008 UJ 1 107], [2008 MLJ CRI 2 686], [2008 SLT 1 329], [2007 AIOL 1302], [2008 ANJ SC 1 124], [2008 CRLJ SC 1351], [2007 SCALE 14 403], [2007 SCR 13 716], [2008 AIC SC 62 155], [2008 CRI LJ 1391]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1907093/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae46e4b01497114135e4
Thota Venkateswarlu Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another on 2 September, 2011
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in this judgment that,
Having regard to the above, while we see no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision to reject the petitioner’s prayer for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007, we also make it clear that the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offences alleged to have been committed in India. However, in respect of offences alleged to have been committed outside India, the learned Magistrate shall not proceed with the trial without the sanction of the Central Government as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.
Anita Kushwaha Vs Pushap Sudan on 19 July, 2016
This is a judgment from Apex Court wherein it held, it has power to transfer of case across states and that include transfer to/from Jammu & Kashmir State of India.
Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 9 December, 2015
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held in this Criminal Revision that the parents-in-law of the knife cannot be forced to undergo criminal trial as no specific allegations supported by evidence is available on record.
See the cunning nature of this knife. Got 15 lakhs as settlement amount even then tried to implicate in-laws!!
From Para 9,
The charge sheet which was filed by the police clearly discloses that the husband of the complainant was residing in Nigeria and he could not be traced. The charge sheet also took note of the fact that during the course of investigation, when the petitioners had prayed for bail, the dispute was settled between them and the complainant on deposit of Rs.15 lakhs by the order of the High Court. The complainant had accepted such amount towards settlement of her matrimonial disputes. Initially an amount of Rs.15 lakhs was deposited with the Registrar General of Delhi High Court but on the request of the complainant, the same was released in her favour. The complainant who is present in person admits of her having received the aforesaid amount.
From Para 28, 29,
The FIR clearly makes out a case of the husband of the complainant not treating her well. The complainant went to Nigeria, only to find that her husband was in the habit of drinking alcohol and watching pornographic films. The house in which the complainant was kept was shared by other relatives of the husband. There is no mention of the petitioners having gone to Nigeria to stay with their son or with the complainant. The averments made in the FIR further disclose that the tall claims of the family of the petitioners was found to be false during the period when the complainant had the opportunity to stay in the matrimonial family. Though it is stated that she was insinuated and taunted for bringing less dowry and was made to do household work as if she was a maid servant of the house, but no specific instance of such acts of cruelty have been listed by the complainant. A vague and general allegation has been raised that she was not treated well in her matrimonial home when she came back from Nigeria. The FIR also refers to the assessment of the complainant that the petitioners did not want her to come back to India.
Apart from this, admittedly, the complainant accepted Rs.15 lakhs towards settlement of her matrimonial dues. The husband of the complainant who is the son of the petitioners is untraceable.A protracted investigation in the matter also did not yield any definitive finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. The petitioners were not sent up for trial.
Appanna @ Laxmaiah Vs The State of Karnataka on 12 September 2012
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that not every cruelty attracts IPC 498A especially in the absence of a harassment/demand for same.
From Para 14,
Assuming for the purpose of argument that the evidence on record as referred to by the learned Sessions Judge indicated that the appellant was beating the deceased under intoxication of liquor, there is no indication that such beating was with a view to force the deceased either to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury to her life, limb or health. It is not the say of any of the witnesses that the deceased at any point of time attempted to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself. Therefore, the torture of physical beating by the appellant as spoken to by the witnesses cannot be treated as ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A to find him guilty for the said charge.
Read the Para 16 too. It nails the prosecution case.
The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.
Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016
In this revision filed by knife against the discharge of husband’s relatives, District Court of Delhi, held that not every cruelty attracts IPC 498A especially in the absence of a harassment/demand for same.
From Para 5,
Perusal of the file reveals that case was registered on the complaint given by the petitioner to the Joint Commissioner of Police. In this complaint it is no where mentioned that any of the respondents no. 2 to 6 had made any specific demand and the allegations are against her husband.
….
Perusal of the file further reveals that supplementary statements of petitioner were recorded on 29.03.2006 & 02.05.2004. In the complaint given to the Joint Commissioner of Police, there are no allegation of harassment and dowry demand against any of the respondents no. 2 to 6. There are allegation against respondent nos. 5 & 6 that they had thrown the gifts and they refused to accept them as the same were not as per their choice. There are allegation against the respondents no. 3 & 4 that they started fighting with the petitioner. They also stated to the petitioner that they are foreign returns and taunted the petitioner and further they demanded for change of gifts. I am of the view that these allegations cannot be construed as demand in view of Section 498A IPC. The Ld. MM has rightly came to conclusion that all the allegations are general in nature. The counsel for the petitioner is not able to make out any allegation of harassment or dowry demand against the respondents no. 2 to 6.
Para 6 further destroys the prosecution case,
It is admitted fact that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 20.06.2002 and complaint was filed on 11.11.2003. It is also admitted fact that the marriage between respondents no. 3 & 4 was solemnized in the year 1999 and marriage between respondents no. 5 & 6 were solemnized in the year 2000. It isalso admitted fact that respondents no. 3 to 6 are not residing in the matrimonial house of the petitioner and they are residing separately after the marriage of thepetitioner. It is true that no date, time and place has been given by the complainant when any demand was raised by the respondents no. 2 to 6.
From Para 8,
But, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under Section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.
