Another judgment from hon’ble Apex Court where it was held that if there are evidences in support of FIR, using 482 CrPC to quash FIR is not to be invoked.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. Investigating Officer is directed to complete the investigation within four weeks from the date of the receipt of this order and the appropriate Court would dispose of the case within six months therefrom.
Good judgment of hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that, though the search may be illegal but the
evidence collected, i.e., Panchnama etc., nonetheless would be admissible at the trial. At the stage of
filing charge-sheet it cannot be said that there is no evidence and the Magistrate or the Sessions
Judge would be committing illegality to discharge the accused on the ground that Section 50 or
other provisions have not been complied with. At the trial an opportunity would be available to the
prosecution to prove that the search was conducted in accordance with law. Even if search is found
to be in violation of law, what weight should be given to the evidence collected is yet another
question to be gone into. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in
discharging the accused, after filing of the charge-sheet holding that mandatory requirements of
Section 50 had not been complied with.
Excellent judgment which is well supported and reasoned from hon’ble High Court of Madras regarding issuance and recall of NBW non-bailable warrants.
It is further seen that the cases in which trial courts issue Non Bailable Warrants may be broadly classified in four categories namely, (i) the trial court issues Non Bailable Warrants without issuing summons first, (ii) the trial court issues a Non Bailable Warrant when the accused is absent for one or two hearings without inquiring into the cause of absence, (iii) where the accused is absent for one or two hearings and files a petition under Section 317 of the Code, the Court rejects the petition and issues a Non Bailable Warrant and (iv) where the accused has intentionally absented himself from the trial and does not attend any hearings and then, the trial court issues a Non Bailable Warrant.
From Para 18, 19 and 20,
It is also brought to my notice that apart from various other reasons for the long pendency of cases before the trial Courts, the non execution of Non Bailable Warrant is one among the reasons. This fact is reiterated through the last data collected by the NCRB.
In most of these pending cases, it is seen that whenever a Non Bailable warrant is kept pending execution, the usual practice among many of the Court is to adjourn the case on the ground that “Non Bailable Warrant is pending”. In heinous crimes, where there is deliberate and continuous non appearance of the accused, the trial Court may proclaim him as person absconding under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., there can be no impediment on the part of the trial Court to pronounce him as a proclaimed offender, instead of keeping the matter pending indefinitely for the purpose of having the warrant executed. Hence, the existence of the fourth category of cases cannot be a ground to preclude the High Court to do justice in the first three categories particularly, when they constitute a major portion of the pending cases in the State of Tamil Nadu, in which, Non Bailable Warrants are pending execution.
Referenced Supreme Court precedent is available here.
This judgment should have been a reported one for it covers soo many good points to dustbin the complaint of the knife against the family members. Read the tags for more info.
From Para 8,
….
However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3.
Citations: [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 1 577], [2012 AIOL 2078], [2013 CRLJ SC 3644], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 969], [2013 SCC 14 374], [2012 SCC CRI 4 426], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 1073], [2013 CRILJ 3644], [2013 AD SC 2 565], [2013 AJR 4 643], [2013 DMC SC 1 1], [2012 JT SC 12 390], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 1 959], [2012 SCALE 12 692], [2013 UC 1 155], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 577], [2013 CRI LJ 3644]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151787634/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af17e4b014971141594d
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/chandralekha-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-anr
Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the charges framed on the husband and his parents as the allegations are vague and bereft of the details as to the place and the time of the incident. The knife has been living separately since April 2011 and hence, there is no question of any beating by the appellants as alleged by her.
This is the landmark judgment regarding the inherent powers of High Court
Powers of Court under CrPC 482
Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Reference made to available here R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866.
In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, this court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly
Reference made to Perjury
The court noticed that the tendency of perjury is very much on the increase. Unless the courts come down heavily upon such persons, the whole judicial process would come to ridicule. The court also observed that chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court.
And law is explained in regards to IPC 415 and 420 Cheating case.
On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that in the definition there are two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning.
And the forgery
The following ingredients are essential for commission of the offence under section 467 IPC:
1. the document in question so forged;
2. the accused who forged it.
3. the document is one of the kinds enumerated in the aforementioned section.
when to issue non-bailable warrants for arresting an individual.
Before parting with this appeal, we would like to discuss an issue which is of great public importance, i.e., how and when warrants should be issued by the Court? It has come to our notice that in many cases that bailable and non-bailable warrants are issued casually and mechanically. In the instant case, the court without properly comprehending the nature of controversy involved and without exhausting the available remedies issued non-bailable warrants.
And… When non-bailable warrants should be issued,
Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when:
* it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or
* the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or
* it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately.As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.
In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the court\022s proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.
Indiakanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/855018/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae56e4b01497114137d5
Citation: [2008 AIR 251], [2007 (10) SCR 847], [2007 (11) JT 499], [2007 (12) SCALE 15], [2007 JT 11 499], [2008 SCC CRI 1 259], [2007 AIOL 1021], [2007 SCR 10 847], [2007 SCC 12 1], [2008 AIR SC 251], [2007 DLT 144 257], [2007 AIC SC 59 30], [2008 ALLLJ 1 40]
Index here.
Summons are served via Whatsapp and same is marked and taken as valid serving of summons by hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
A landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court which has seen many twists and turn of events spearheaded by the cunning knife who is an Advocate and filed a large number of cases against her husband and in-laws.
At the end, the cunning foxy knife bit the dust and had to put her tail between her legs.
Another important aspect is the following from Para 24:
24. Section 4 provides for a non obstante clause. In terms of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of law before the commencement of the Act, are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause contained in Section 4, the provisions of the Act alone are applicable. Sections 18 and 19 prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to maintenance of wife by her husband and only on his death upon the father-in-law, Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise.
Citations: [AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2675], [2008 AIR SCW 4475], [2008 (5) SRJ 92], [(2008) 1 CRILR(RAJ) 259], [(2008) 6 ALLMR 75 (SC)], [(2008) 2 MARRILJ 376], [(2008) 2 JCC 1127 (SC)], [2008 CRILR(SC&MP) 259], [(2008) 65 ALLINDCAS 38 (SC)], [2008 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 259], [2008 (65) ALLINDCAS 38], [2008 (4) SCALE 601], [2008 (4) SCC 649], [2008 (2) CALCRILR 1], [2008 (2) JCC 1127], [2008 (2) MARR LJ 376], [2008 (6) ALL MR 75 NOC], [(2008) 3 CIVILCOURTC 570], [(2008) 2 MAD LJ(CRI) 1111], [(2008) 4 RAJ LW 3440], [(2008) 2 RECCRIR 699], [(2008) 2 WLC(SC)CVL 93], [(2008) 3 ALLCRILR 9], [(2008) 2 ALL WC 1636, (2009) 1 GUJ LR 200], [(2008) 4 SCALE 601], [(2008) 71 ALL LR 482], [(2008) 5 BOM CR 441]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/913087/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae92e4b01497114142ed
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=302265
Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.
A knife like complainant who by her adulterous life caused mental agony and family disorder both for husband and children was shown the door by the hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in this Criminal Revision on a DV Case which was allowed.
The knife was living in adultery and neglected/left the children and ultimately wanted property of the brother of husband and custody of major and married children!!
Highlight
As per the provisions of the Act, the proceedings have to be held in camera and to be tried summarily. According to the provisions of the Act, time fixed is 60 days for disposal from the date of the first hearing. This Act is to provide speedy remedy for deserving aggrieved person and for that reason, a summary enquiry is contemplated
Citation: [2015 ALL M.R. (Cri.) Journal 178]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112132700/
The index page is here.
One good judgment from High Court of Gujarat which held that woman who allegedly has a illicit relationship with the husband of a knife is not a relative of husband in the context of 498A IPC
A precedent is available here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1092 access attempts in the last 7 days.
