Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011

Posted on March 10, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Apex Court’s Surinder Mohan Vikal decision, Delhi High Court held that if any offence is made out in a complaint under Section 500 IPC for defamation, Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. is attracted and cognizance of offence should be taken within a period of three years from the date of occurrence.

Citations : [2011 DLT 182 221], [2012 CRICC 1 85], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 4 735], [2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 2664], [2011 RCR CRI 4 735]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10503637/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090e0ae4b014971117b1c7

Ram Charitra Tiwari and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 13 Jul 2021

Posted on March 7, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Another misinterpretation of Section 3 of DP… this time from Allahabad High Court.

Ram Charitra Tiwari and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 13 Jul 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44284755/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/60f50c979fca193a50689444

News:

https://lawtrend.in/dowry-prohibition-act-protects-dowry-giver-allahabad-hc/

https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/MTA2NzU=/Dowry-Prohibition-Act-Protects-Dowry-Giver-Allahabad-HC

M.A Khaliq and Ors Vs Ashok Kumar and Anr on 15 Sep 2021

Posted on March 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A three-judge full bench of Apex Court held as follows.

The report of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, after due inquiry into the matter sets out the factual details of the matter. The report indicates that the contempt petitioner was not only summoned to Akividu Police Station in the name of counseling but was also detained. In the circumstances, there was clear violation of the directions issued by this Court not only in Arnesh Kumar but also in the case in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.
The mere fact that no crime was registered, could not be a defence, nor would it be an escape from the rigour of the decisions rendered by this Court. As a matter of fact, summoning the person without there being any crime registered against him and detaining him would itself be violative of basic principles.
In the circumstances, the Division Bench was not right and justified in setting aside the view taken by the Single Judge of the High Court. We, therefore, allow this appeal. While setting aside the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, we restore the decision of the Single Judge.
However, considering the facts and circumstances on record, the substantive sentence of three months as recorded in paragraph 32 of the decision of the Single Judge is modified to 15 days leaving rest of the incidents of sentence completely intact.
The contemnor shall surrender himself before the Registrar of the High Court within two weeks from today.

M.A Khaliq and Ors Vs Ashok Kumar and Anr on 15 Sep 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/136109957/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/ma-khaliq-ors-v-ashok-kumar-anr/1FCF45

https://legiteye.com/detaining-any-person-without-there-being-any-crime-registered-against-him-is-violation-of-basic-principles-supreme-court/

Division Bench decision is here.

Ashok Kumar Vs M.A.Khaliq on 18 Jul 2019

Single Judge decision is here.

M.A Khaliq and 2 Ors Vs Bhaskar Bhushan and Anr on 20 Nov 2018

Final Forum:

Review petition was filed but withdrawn by the contemnor himself.

Ashok Kumar Vs M.A.Khaliq on 30 Mar 2022

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Posted on March 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench decision from Telangana High Court passed these guidelines.

Hence, this Court feels that an alternative mechanism shall be evolved to address the plight of these under-trial prisoners / accused:

Parties Advocates shall download the order copy from the High Court’s Website along with case details which are available in the case status information

While filing the memo on behalf of accused for furnishing sureties, the Advocate shall state in the Memo that he / she has downloaded the order copy from the High Court’s Website. The Administrative Officer Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court concerned shall verify the order from the High Court’s Website and make an endorsement to that effect and then shall place the same before the Court.

The Public Prosecutor shall also obtain necessary instructions in this regard and assist the Court.

The Presiding Officer, on the same day, shall dispose of the same and dispatch the release order to the jail authorities concerned forthwith through e-mail or any other electronic mode.

In cases of anticipatory bail, the burden to verify the authenticity of the copy is on the Station House Officer concerned and if necessary, he should obtain necessary instructions from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and complete the process on the same day expeditiously as per law.

The jail authorities on receipt of the release order shall release the accused forthwith.

Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to:

The Principal Secretary for Home Affairs, State of Telangana,

The Director General of Police, State of Telangana,

The Director of Prosecution, who, in turn, shall sensitize the police officers Station House Officers / Public Prosecutors and ensure implementation of this order

Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to all the Principal District Judges in the State, who, in turn, shall sensitize all the Presiding Officers and ensure implementation of this order.

Registrar (Judicial) is further directed to circulate the copy of this order to all the Bar Associations in the State through the Principal District Judges, so that they can effectively address their client’s cause.

Registrar (Judicial) shall also issue a separate notification in this regard and the same shall be displayed in the High Court’s Website.

These directions will apply to all bail application including bails in Criminal Revision as well as Criminal Appeals.
This order shall come into force from 22.11.2021.

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Rakesh Kumar Vs Vijayanta Arya (DCP) and Ors on 07 Dec 2021

Posted on March 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A police officer was punished with 1 day imprisonment (suspended the same so that an appeal may be filed) for breaching Arnesh Kumar Guidelines.

From Paras 1 and 2,

1. The court has already held R-3 guilty of committing contempt of court. He arrested the petitioner in breach of directions passed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1277/2014. The requisite notice was not served upon the petitioner. There were mere allegations of criminal breach of trust against the petitioner, which entailed a maximum sentence of three years. It did not warrant the arrest of a person in the manner in which it was done. The petitioner’s own complaints to the police were not responded to. The highhandedness of the police officer, in specific breach of the Supreme Court’s directions is evident. Arnesh Kumar (supra) holds that in the event of non-service of notice under section 41A of the Cr.P.C., contempt proceedings would be initiated.
2. The petitioner’s right to personal liberty is ensured by the Constitution of India. It can be curtained only by a procedure prescribed established by law. The Supreme Court has said in Arnesh Kumar that notice under s. 41A Cr.P.C. is requisite. The notice was not served. The law has been breached. It is not the petitioner only who has suffered the humiliation and the indignity of being arrested; the ordeal would have affected the reputation of his family i.e. his children, wife and parents. No amount of explanation to the neighbours or those who may have seen the arrest, would undo the
embarrassment and indignity suffered by the petitioner and his relatives. Arrest and incarceration destroys a person and collaterally affects many other innocent relatives. Subsequent release or acquittal of an innocent, is of no solace and offers no reparation to the loss of reputation or for the temporary loss of precious personal liberty. A stigma gets attached to the person who has been taken away, detained and/or put behind bars by the police. R-3 is deemed to have due knowledge of the rights of a citizen and the procedure prescribed in law.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Vijayanta Arya (DCP) and Ors on 07 Dec 2021

Luckose Zachariah Vs Joseph Joseph on 18 Feb 2022

Posted on March 3, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division bench of the Supreme Court held that the reports filed by police under 173(2) (Original Charge sheet) and 173(8) (Supplementary Charge sheet) are to be considered by the Magistrate to come to an opinion if the accused committed an offence.

From Para 16,

16 In view of the clear position of law which has been enunciated in the judgments of this Court, both in Vinay Tyagi (supra) and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (supra), it is necessary for the Magistrate, to have due regard to both the reports, the initial report which was submitted under Section 173(2) as well as the supplementary report which was submitted after further investigation in terms of Section 173(8). It is thereafter that the Magistrate would have to take a considered view in accordance with law as to whether there is ground for presuming that the persons named as accused have committed an offence. While the High Court has relied upon the decision in Vinay Tyagi (supra), it becomes necessary for this Court to set the matter beyond any controversy having due regard to the fact that the Sessions Judge in the present case had while remitting the proceedings back to the Magistrate relied on the judgment of the Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Joseph (supra) which is contrary to the position set out in Vinay Tyagi. Hence, the JFCM – I Alappuzha shall reexamine both the reports in terms of the decisions of this Court in Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs State of Gujarat as noted above and in terms of the observations contained in the present judgment. The Magistrate shall take a considered decision expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of the present order.

Luckose Zachariah Vs Joseph Joseph on 18 Feb 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

M.S Jayaraj Vs Commissioner of Excise Kerala and Ors on 29 Sep 2000

Posted on March 3, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A simple but crucial observation by the Apex Court.

From Para 18,

18. We have difficulty to accept the said contention for more than one reason. If the rule-making authority had intended it to be so they would have effortlessly used the words “outside local limits specified in the licence” in the proviso because the same words have been used in sub- rule (1). As the proviso gives powers to the Excise Commissioner to order removal of a shop to a place “outside the limits specified in this sub- rule” it can only refer to the limits specified in that sub-rule and not elsewhere. It must be noted in this context that sub-rule (2) specifies certain limits such as “within 400 metres” (for toddy shops) and “within 200 metres” (for FL 1 shops) from certain institutions mentioned therein. It is with reference to those limits which are specified in sub-rule (2) that the proviso confers power on the Excise Commissioner to pass order for removal.

M.S Jayaraj Vs Commissioner of Excise Kerala and Ors on 29 Sep 2000

Casemine Version:

M.S Jayaraj Vs Commissioner of Excise Kerala and Ors on 29 Sep 2000 (CM)

Citations : [2000 AIR SC 3674], [2000 SCC 7 552], [2000 SUPREME 7 105], [2000 JT SUPP 1 487], [2000 AIRSC 3266], [2000 SCALE 6 674], [2000 ECC 72 7], [2000 KLT SC 3 820], [2000 SUPP SCR 3 616], [2000 AIR SCW 3674], [2000 SUPPSCR 3 616]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1919476/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad6fe4b014971141169c

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: March 2022

Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011

Ram Charitra Tiwari and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 13 Jul 2021

M.A Khaliq and Ors Vs Ashok Kumar and Anr on 15 Sep 2021

V.Bharath Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Rakesh Kumar Vs Vijayanta Arya (DCP) and Ors on 07 Dec 2021

Luckose Zachariah Vs Joseph Joseph on 18 Feb 2022

M.S Jayaraj Vs Commissioner of Excise Kerala and Ors on 29 Sep 2000