Justice Madaan held that, the JJ Act did not prohibit the provision/protection of anticipatory bail available u/s 438 CrPC so it cannot be said that such relief is not available to the petitioner. So he granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
Krishna Kumari (Minor) Vs State of Haryana on 24 July 2020 Interim OrderMonth: July 2020
Satpal Singh Vs State of Punjab on 15 July 2020
Sensible Judge understood the nefarious arrangement between two parties to marriage, more as a contract to immigrate to Canada. AB granted.
Satpal Singh Vs State of Punjab on 15 July 2020Alla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 July 2020
WP(PIL) 174/2019
23 July 2020
High Court dismissed the PIL finding no Public Interest but sufficient Political Interest here and here. Media favourable to YSRCP finds HC favouring TDP here. In case the original article is removed from site, here is a true copy saved from the site. This serves as Secondary evidence as per Evidence Act.
HC Favours TDP
17 December 2019
HC Orders probe here.
6 December 2019
Nara Chandra Babu inaugurates the Party Headquarters here and here.
MLA files PIL here.
N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020
In a short direction given to SEC Sri N.Ramesh Kumar, High Court said as follows:
N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020In the meantime, petitioner is at liberty to take recourse as specified under Article 243K(3) of the Constitution of India, making a request to Hon’ble the Governor for implementation of the directions of this Court in terms of the Order dated 29-05-2020 in W.P. No. 8163 of 2020.
On this Direction from High Court, N Ramesh Kumar approached Hon’ble the Governor’s office seeking direction to State Government.
Hon’ble Governor’s Office was pleased to do the needful.
Secretary to Governor Letter to N Ramesh KumarNow the Entire Andhra Pradesh State is awaiting when the State Government will do suicide by not following Supreme Court direction which directly assists in invocation of Article 356 of Constitution of India, which will therefore dismiss the State Government and promulgate President’s Rule in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Will this lead only to Suicide of State Government or something/someone else is also to be seen as time rolls on.
The earlier AP High Court Order is here.
CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005
Here is the one of the shortest decisions from Supreme Court
From Para 2,
2. By the impugned order, the Special Court has discharged the accused Raghunath Lekhraj Wadhwa, Jitendra Ratilal Shroff and Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff from Special Case No. 4 of 1997. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the Special Court has virtually passed an order of acquittal in the garb of an order of discharge. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, what is required to be seen is as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In our view, the Special Court was not justified in discharging the aforesaid accused persons.
Casemine version:
CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005 CM VerSupreme Court version (Record of {Proceedings):
CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005Citations: [2009 SCC 16 429], [2010 SCC CRI 3 315]
Other Source links:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117eb32713e179478af2d0#
Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992
Bombay High Court held that, “Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry”
From Para 6,
Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992Dowry in the sense of that expression contemplated by Act 28 of 1961 is a demand for property or valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the marriage. In other words it is a consideration from the side of the bride’s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be. Where the demand for property or valuable security has no connection with the consideration for the marriage, it will not amount to a demand for dowry. In the instant case, the evidence has to be properly understood and thus viewed it is clear that what the appellants wanted was valuable presents to be made to appellant Mahadeo on the occasion of festivals like Deepavali. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the presents are customarily given to sons-in-law on festive occasions and giving of such presents is in no way connected with the wedding or marriage. It is a post-marriage expectation and the expectation and performance thereof once restricted to the affluents and the middle class, has now spread its tentacles to the poor also. The expectation is because of the relationship, but without any nexus to the agreement to marry. Therefore, it does not amount to dowry. Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry. This is clear from the qualifying clause of section 2 in Act 28 of 1961 reproduced above.
Citations: [1993 (3) BomCR 473]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/553393/
Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001
Bombay High Court held that, Irrespective of when a demand was made, either during/before marriage or subsequent to marriage, section 4 offence is made out.
From Para 7,
Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001Having regard to the dominant object of the Act which is to stamp out the practice of demanding dowry in any shape or form either before or after the marriage. The entire definition of the word ‘dowry’ should not be imported into Section 4 and a liberal construction has to be given to the word ‘dowry’ used in Section 4 to mean that any property or valuable security which if consented to be given on the demand being made would become dowry within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. The object of Section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for a marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for ‘giving’ property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under Section 3 read with Section 2 of the Act. There is no warrant for taking the view that the initial demand for giving of property or valuable security would not constitute an offence and that an offence would take place only when the demand was made again after the party on whom the demand was made agreed to comply with it.
Citations: [2001 CriLJ 2792]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/737573/
Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006
A key element necessary to go for Discharge petition is the following:
That prosecution should refer to existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials. If this is missing, you have good chance of winning your Discharge Petition.
Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006With reference to the absence of allegations under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, it is submitted whether the charge sheet has reference to any particular material referred to in it and the relevance of it is to be considered at the time when the charge is framed. It would not be desirable to analyse minutely the materials as at that stage the Court is primarily concerned with the question as to whether charge is to be framed in respect of any offence and whether there prima facie appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials. Therefore, the appellants’ stand that the charge sheet does not refer to any particular material cannot be accepted, more particularly, in view of the specific materials referred to by learned counsel for the respondent-State.
Citations: [2007 JT 1 89], [2006 CRIMES SC 4 388], [2007 AIR SC 1276], [2007 AIR SC 1415], [2007 SCC CRI 1 193], [2007 SCC 1 1], [2006 SCR SUPP 10 197], [2006 SUPREME 8 964], [2006 SCALE 13 54], [2007 AIR SC 1274], [2007 AIC SC 51 623]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1634320/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae36e4b014971141330e
Index of Discharge/Quash case laws here.
Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014
High Court of AP has held in this Anticipatory Bail application, to be a falsely implicated case against petitioners. Certain guidelines were passed.
It is most unfortunate that the de facto complainant has implicated her in laws, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, parents of the mother-in-law and their relatives, two more sisters of her husband and their husbands who are residing in foreign countries. A reading of the complaint gives an impression that the de facto complainant has implicated almost all the relatives of her husband and their other close relatives who are visiting her husbands house. This is most unfortunate situation. This type of complaint gives an impression that Section 498-A is being misused to harass not only the husband of the de facto complainant but all his relatives. It is alleged that in order to force the husband to come to their terms or in order to meet their huge demands, this kind of complaints are being given. How difficult it would be for those persons staying in Australia, Jeddah or USA to come over to India and face the criminal case and prove their innocence.
Truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided unless fair and dispassionate investigation is completed. Sometimes, after full-fledged trial only, truth may come out. There cannot be any doubt to say that there is dowry menace in the society. But, at the same time, it is also a fact that certain marriages are performed without any dowry. Due to ill-advice or under a wrong impression that if a complaint is lodged under section 498-A IPC, the husband may come to terms, complaints are being lodged with the police. When differences arise, there should be proper counselling before and after marriage. It is quite natural that husband and wife would have faced different circumstances and environment from their childhood resulting in gaining different impressions and opinions and therefore they may have difference of opinion on life style and on several other issues. Therefore, issues have to be resolved by trying to understand one another, particularly, when the parties have children, special care has to be taken to protect the interest of the children. The welfare of the children should be given utmost importance. Therefore, proper counselling at initial stage would help the parties. It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.
Here are the guidelines.
It appears that there is every need to give similar directions in Andhra Pradesh. Under Domestic Violence Act, protection officer is required to assist the police and the Court. Section 14 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 envisages that the Magistrate may, at any stage of the proceedings under this Act, direct the respondents or the aggrieved person either singly or jointly to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who posses such qualification and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-compoundable offence.
In the light of the above discussion, the following guidelines have been issued.
a) A fair and dispassionate investigation should be conducted. After completing investigation, the same should be verified by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
b) During the course of investigation, if the investigating officer is satisfied that there is false implication of any person in the complaint then he may delete the names of such persons from the charge sheet after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police or any other officer equivalent to that rank.
c) As soon as a complaint is received either from the wife alleging dowry harassment or from the husband that there is every likelihood of him being implicated in a case of dowry harassment, then, both the parties should be asked to undergo counselling with any experienced counsellor or counsellors. The report of such counsellors should be made as a part of the report to be submitted by the investigating officer to the Court.
d) The Superintendent of Police, in consultation with the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, may prepare a panel of counsellors and such panel of counsellors along with their address and phone numbers should be made available at all the police stations.
e) Normally, no accused should be arrested, where the allegation is simple dowry harassment. If the arrest is necessary during the course of investigation, the investigating officer should obtain permission of the Superintendent of Police or any other officer of the equal rank in metropolitan cities. If arrest is not necessary, the police may complete the investigation and lay charge sheet before the Court without arresting the accused and seek necessary orders from the Court. However, in the case of dowry death, suspicious death, suicide or where the allegations are serious in nature such as inflicting of bodily injury etc., the police officer may arrest the accused. However, the intimation of such arrest should be immediately sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police who may give necessary guidance to the arresting officer.
f) No accused or witness should be unnecessarily called to the police station and as soon as the purpose of summoning them to the police station is over they should be sent back. There should not be any unnecessary harassment to any person i.e. either to the relatives of the de facto complainant or to the relatives of the husband.
g) The higher police officers should see that the parties do not make any allegations that they are forced to come to any settlement in police stations against their wish. However, this does not mean that the police officers should not make any effort for amicable settlement.
h) The advocates have to play their role in trying to unite the families. They must act as social reformers while dealing with these kind of cases, particularly, where the couple have children. Even when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, they should examine the matter judiciously and consider whether there are valid grounds for remanding the accused to the judicial custody. No accused should be remanded to judicial custody mechanically in routine manner. If the Magistrate feels that the accused cannot be released after taking bonds, necessary orders may be passed accordingly.The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, is requested to issue necessary instructions to all the concerned in this regard.
Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014
Citations: [
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122766842/
This is followed in AP High Court judgment here.
Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
This can be considered as a sitemap of all Summary pages on my Site.
Delivery of Justice
- All Bare Acts of India here.
- All Compulsory Registration of Marriage in India – Both Acts and Rules here.
- All Dowry related case laws here.
- All 498A IPC Judgments here.
- All 494 and 495 IPC Judgments here.
- All Matters related to Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) here.
- All Bail Matters here.
- All Condone Delay Judgments here.
- All Transfer Petition Judgments here.
- All Look Out Circular Decisions here.
- All Compensation Judgments for Motor Vehicle Accidents or other mishaps here.
- All Defamation Judgments here.
- All Domestic Violence Judgments here.
- All Divorce Judgments here.
- All Maintenance Judgments here.
- All Acquittal from Criminal Matrimonial Cases here.
- All Perjury Judgments here.
- All Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. here.
- All Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C. here.
- All Quash Judgment u/s 482 Cr.P.C. here.
- All Amicable ways of working with Advocates here.
- All Life Cycles of various cases here.
- All Passport Judgments here.
- Contempt of Court Judgments here.
Administration of Justice:
- All Protection from Police High-handedness here.
- All Reliefs from Judiciary here.
- All publicly available legal research tools here.
- All Video Conferencing Guidelines of Courts in India here.
- Usage of A4 sheets with Double-Sided Printing for all purposed in Court here.
- eCourts Project
- AI-based Legalbots
- Staff on Administration of Justice, such as Registry Staff can not exercise Judicial functions such as deciding/dismissing applications/petitions based on their maintainability. See here.
Personal Interest
- All Legal Goals to Achieve under Judicial Activism (Via Public Interest Litigation) here.
- All false cases laid on me [Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife] here.