Litigation by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

Posted on October 24 by ShadesOfKnife

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya ji has launched a lot of Public Interest Litigation and since the entire collection is not available in a single place, the following is a curated list for interested folks.

Initiated between 1986-1990

Initiated between 1991-1995

Initiated between 1996-2000

Initiated between 2001-2005

Initiated between 2006-2010

Initiated between 2011-2015

Initiated between 2016-2020

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 699/2016 : Attacking the pending criminal cases against the elected representatives of people (MPs and MLAs) in various Courts of India and expedite and disposed them on war-footing.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 329/2019 : The Section 31 of the CrPC, which provides that a convict can serve varying jail terms simultaneously for several offences, should not be made applicable to the convicts in heinous cases under special laws such as “the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, and Fugitive Economic Offenders Act,.

Initiated between 2021-2025

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Posted on October 21 by ShadesOfKnife

Vagua allegations don’t take fake cases far. Bombay HS quashed the fake case of 498A IPC against the relatively.

From Para 14,

14. Nowadays, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations, against every member of the family of the husband, implicating everybody under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute an offence and meet the requirements of the law at least prima facie.

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Rampyari and Ors Vs Ms Kamlesh on 09 Mar 2010

Posted on October 21 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji fined 25K INR to be paid to the Respondent, due to the delay tactics employed by Petitioner/her Advocate in dragging on the case…

Rampyari and Ors Vs Ms Kamlesh on 09 Mar 2010

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

Posted on October 20 by ShadesOfKnife

Since there was 1 judgment from a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court which said Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory u/s 340 CrPC, the 2-judge bench in this case, referred this point to a Larger bench.

From Para 14,

14. In any event, given that the decision of the three-Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar (supra) did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from the opinion expressed by a Coordinate Bench in Pritish (supra) regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as also the observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), we find it necessary that the present matter be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration, particularly to answer the following questions:
(i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court?
(ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?
15. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

Posted on October 20 by ShadesOfKnife

Citing Iqbal Marwah here and other landmark case laws, Supreme Court says,

From Para 10,

10. It is fairly well settled that before lodging of the complaint, it is necessary that the court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint. It is not necessary that the court must use the actual words of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; but the court should record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. Observing that under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not on mere allegations or to vindicate personal vendetta,

From Para 11,

11. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient in the interest of justice”. The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. It has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the present case whether any prima facie case is made out for forgery or making a forged document warranting issuance of directions for lodging the complaint under Section 193, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

From Para 19,

19. Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama is wrong, mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to create a forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the appellants.

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC 6 477], [2019 SCC CRI 2 826], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 664], [AIR 2019 SC 2280], [2019 (2) Crimes 279], [2019 (7) Scale 559], [2019 CriLJ 2896], [2019 CrLJ 2896], [2019 (3) JLJR 122], [2019 (3) PLJR 122]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150953328/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cd3c6064a932660042c22f2

Sasikala Pushpa v. State of Tamil Nadu

Index of Perjury case laws is here.

CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020

Posted on October 19 by ShadesOfKnife

Delhi High Court held this interesting point on discharge an accused.

71. In view of above facts discussed, the settled law is that if the prosecution witnesses presumed to be true, without any cross examination, still conviction cannot be awarded to the accused, then deserves for discharge, as the case in hand is.

CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here.

Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Aug 2018

Posted on October 19 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held as follows:

11) In our opinion, when a party relies upon any evidence, whether it is oral or documentary, in support of his case, the Court/Committee/Authority, as the case may be, and especially the original Court is under an obligation to apply its mind to the entire documentary evidence on which the party has placed reliance for proving his case and record its reasoned findings whether accepting the evidence or rejecting it. What is important is the consideration of entire evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with law while deciding the case.

Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors 10 Aug 2018

Citations : [2018 SCC 9 89], [2018 SCC L&S 2 572], [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 882], [2018 AIR SC 3776]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35798783/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b6dc0919eff433a41935bfc

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/vilas-dinkar-bhat-versus-state-of-maharashtra-ors

D.Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain on 18 Jun 2020

Posted on October 18 by ShadesOfKnife

Instead of a Private complaint, the victim should have filed a police complaint u/s 166A IPC as is was inserted into the CrPC book via 2013 Amendment (Due to 2012 Nirbhaya incident)

D.Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain on 18 Jun 2020

Citations : 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 517

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127137628/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ef19a8f3321bc37150ee24f

D. T. Virupakshappa Vs C Subash on 27 Apr 2015

Posted on October 18 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that, even though there is police excess, it was connected to (meaning part of) the investigation of a criminal case.

From Para 10,

10. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual matrix, it is evident that the whole allegation is on police excess in connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the
performance of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the previous sanction of the State Government. The High Court missed this crucial point in the impugned order.

D. T. Virupakshappa Vs C Subash on 27 Apr 2015

Citations : [2015 AIR SC 2022], [2015 AD SC 5 462], [2015 AJR 4 624], [2015 AKR 2 755], [2015 CCR SC 2 350], [2015 CRIMES SC 4 214], [2015 JLJR 3 123], [2015 NCC 2 243], [2015 OLR SC 2 409], [2015 PLJR 3 204], [2015 RCR CRIMINAL 2 1001], [2015 SCJ 8 265], [2015 UC 2 867], [2015 SCC 12 231], [2016 SCC CRI 1 82], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 390], [2015 SCR 5 534], [2015 GUJ LH 2 359], [2015 AIC 151 175], [2015 ECRN 3 176], [2015 CRI LJ 2589], [2015 ALT CRL SC 3 143]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4302712/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b295e561097e45a4e2d0

Sankaran Moitra Vs Sadhna Das and Anr on 24 Mar 2006

Posted on October 18 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Majority judgment from this 3-judge bench regarding the applicability of sanction from government to prosecute a public servant u/s 197 CrPC.

Sankaran Moitra Vs Sadhna Das and Anr on 24 Mar 2006

Dissenting opinion by Justice C.K. Thakker:

Sankaran Moitra Vs Sadhna Das and Anr on 24 Mar 2006 (Thakker J)

Citations :

2006 AIOL 1722006 SUPREME 4 6452006 SCC CRI 2 3582006 SCC 4 5842006 JT 4 342006 AIR SC 16952006 BOMCR CRI SC 2 4512006 AIR SC 15992006 SCALE 3 4142006 AIR SCW 1695

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1179931/

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1212531/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae38e4b014971141334c

Earlier Calcutta High Court Judgment here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: October 2020

Litigation by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Rampyari and Ors Vs Ms Kamlesh on 09 Mar 2010

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020

Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Aug 2018

D.Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain on 18 Jun 2020

D. T. Virupakshappa Vs C Subash on 27 Apr 2015

Sankaran Moitra Vs Sadhna Das and Anr on 24 Mar 2006