Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Posted on October 25, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Family Court judge at Bandra, Mumbai passed order to initiate perjury proceedings against lying knife.

From Para 16,

16. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity, must do equity. The fraud and justice cannot dwell together. The justice seeker must step in the Court with clean hands. The dishonest person cannot be entertained by the Court of law. In matrimonial matters persons come with their family problems before the Court and Court makes every possible attempt to find out solution of their problems. In such circumstances, it is the first and foremost responsibility of the party to tell the truth to the Court, so that Court can go to the root of the matter to solve the real dispute. There should not be game of hide and seek when justice is sought from the Court of law. All the Dharmashastras teach us “सतय ं वदं” “Tell the truth”. Foundation of every case must be on true and honest disclosure of facts. No place can be given to lies or falsehood during the course of administration of justice. The person who comes to the Court i.e. house of justice, to seek justice, has to show his bonafides and honesty by making true disclosure of the facts within his knowledge.

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022

Posted on October 21, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court gave alimony to abuser, without any basis!

From last page of judgment, (total absence of any basis/reason)

Before parting, even though the parties have lived together in matrimonial home only for nine months, and even though there is no child from their wedlock, and even though during this litigation admittedly the appellant has already paid Rs. 23 lacs to the respondent as maintenance yet, we deem it fit to grant her permanent alimony of a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lacs only) as full and final settlement.

Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000

Posted on October 21, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed guidelines while disposing the appearance of the petitioners u/s 205 CrPC.

7. Consequentially, we quash the order of the High Court dated 3.10.1996. However, we hasten to add that this order of ours is passed without prejudice to the right of the respondents to move the trial court for discharge. We are disposed to afford some more reliefs to the respondents. We notice that among the respondent some of them are ladies. So, if any of the respondents would apply before the trial court for exempting them from personal appearance the trial court shall exempt them from personal appearance on the following conditions:

1. He or she would not dispute his or her identity as the particular accused mentioned in the charge sheet.
2. A counsel on their behalf would be present in the court whenever the case is taken up.
3. They would be present in the court on the date when such presence becomes imperatively needed.

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000 (IK Ver)

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000 (CM Ver)

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000 (LD Ver)

Citations: [2000 ACR SC 3 2522], [2000 JT SC 10 479], [2002 SCC 10 401], [2001 AIR SC 0 2308], [2001 AIR SCW 2308]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1021734/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad69e4b014971141155c

https://legaldata.in/court/read/803964

Index here.

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Posted on October 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP HC held as follows while directing to release the passport of the petitioner.

From Para 4 and 5,

4. In view of the above finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court, directing for surrender of passport or to deposit the same in the Court is ex-facie illegal and it is clearly un-sustainable under Law.
5. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, neither the Police nor the Courts have power to seize the passport or to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the passport even when a criminal case is pending in the Court of law and only the Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport.

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

Posted on October 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows while directing to release passport of the petitioner.

6. The law is now fairly well settled that the Courts have no power to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the Passport, even when a criminal case is pending against the accused in the Court of law. It is only the Passport Officer, who is the competent authority under Passports Act, to impound the Passport of any citizen of the country. If the police got any apprehension that the accused, who is facing trial in the criminal case, may leave the country and he may not be available for trial of the case, they have to approach the Passport authority concerned with a request to impound the Passport of the said person on the ground that he is facing trial in a criminal case. If the Court, before whom the accused is facing trial, is of the opinion that if the accused leaves the country and goes abroad that he may not be available for trial, the Court can issue necessary direction to the accused not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court or on a petition filed by the prosecution to that effect, the Court can pass appropriate order in this regard.

From Para 8, the Precedent

8. Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down in aforesaid Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order directing the petitioner to surrender his Passport or to deposit the same in the Court is ex-facie illegal and it is clearly unsustainable under law.

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

Posted on October 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows:

From Para 4,

4. The present case concerns an application made by the petitioner before the trial Court seeking release of his passport on the ground that the son of the petitioner studies in a school at Paris – Sports Etudes Concept and was attending classes virtually. Since classes have now started physically, the
petitioner wanted to accompany his son for getting him admitted in the school. This application is rejected by the trial Court. It is the rejection of the application that is called in question in the present proceedings. Therefore, these proceedings concern with the rejection of release of passport of the petitioner and not any other issue that is pending in plethora of cases between the parties.
6. Learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli would submit that several proceedings between the parties are pending consideration. The Apex Court has stayed all further proceedings in other cases. The case at hand is not an offshoot of those cases, but an independent case of an application, where the passport of the petitioner is seized, not impounded by the police and there is grave urgency for the petitioner to leave the country and get his son admitted to the school at France.

And then

17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings before the competent criminal Court and the Police after investigation have also filed charge sheet in the matter in which, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.10. Therefore, it is not a case where the passport of the petitioner cannot even be seized or impounded, but, by whom is the question.
18. The Passport Act is a special enactment and is trite that it being a special enactment would prevail over Section 102 or Section 104 of the Cr.P.C., which empower the Police to seize and the Court to impound any document. Impounding of any document produced before the Court cannot stretch to an extent that it can impound the passport. Therefore, the deposit of passport before the Court or passport being held before the Police, both will become without authority of law. The further observation of the Court that it would be in its custody till conclusion of trial is, clearly on the face of it, without authority of law, as it would amount to impounding the passport. This very issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of SURESH NANDA v. CBI

The Apex Court dealt with the very issue as to who would be the Authority to impound the passport. The Apex Court holds that neither the Police nor the Court invoking powers under Section 102 or Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. can seize or impound a passport. Impounding of a passport is by the Authority vested under the Act as depicted therein. It is not in dispute that the Authority under the Act is not even made aware of seizure or retention of the passport by the Police or before the Court.

From Para 24,

21. The power of impounding a document under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. is available to a Court. This cannot stretch to an extent of impounding the passport. The passport coming within the purview of the Act and it being a special law would prevail over the provisions of Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. The Court can impound any document, but not the passport as it is dealt with under a special enactment. The power of impounding is available only to the Competent Authority under the Act, in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Wherefore, the order rejecting the release of passport by the Court observing that it is held in safe custody till the conclusion of the trial is unsustainable. Therefore, the petitioner becomes entitled for release of passport in his favour, as right to hold a passport and travel is, without doubt, held to be a fundamental right in plethora of judgments.

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

State of Uttaranchal and Anr Vs Sunil Kumar Vaish and Ors on 16 Aug 2011

Posted on October 16, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows, while referring to importance of quality of reasoned orders/judgments.

From Paras 15 and 16,

15. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts’ clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties’ submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system.
16. We are sorry to say that the judgment in question does not satisfy the above standards set for proper determination of disputes. Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication of our courts. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes.

State of Uttaranchal and Anr Vs Sunil Kumar Vaish and Ors on 16 Aug 2011

Citations:

Other Sources:

Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022

Posted on October 9, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follow, relying on Vinod Kumar here.

The mandate of law itself postulate that examination-in-chief followed with cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following. In other words, there should not be any ground for adjournment in recording the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the prosecution witness, as the case may be.
We do not want to dilate at this stage since the trial is pending but we would like to observe that the learned trial judge may take a note of the judgment of this Court in reference to Section 309 Cr.P.C. and not only expedite the trial but the examination-in-chief/cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following but no long adjournment should be granted while recording the statement of prosecution witnesses.

Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022

Posted on October 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows:

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we felt inclined to pass similar order in the present matter too, where the High Court has proceeded to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the appellants on the condition of their furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and also depositing a demand draft in the sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as an ad-interim victim compensation. However, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the expression “victim compensation” as used in the impugned order may not be apt for the reason that it was not a case of recovery of victim compensation but, otherwise, the condition cannot be said to be unjustified or onerous because receiving of the said sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- by the appellants at the time of marriage has not been a fact in dispute.
Even if we take the submissions of the learned counsel for the contesting respondent on its face value, we are clearly of the view that in essence, the petitions seeking relief of pre-arrest bail are not money recovery proceedings and, ordinarily, there is no justification for adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person concerned apprehending arrest has to make payment.
Having regard to the circumstances, in our view, the said condition of depositing a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- for the purpose of granting the relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be approved and else, the order granting bail deserves to be maintained. Hence, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter for reconsideration to the High Court and the order impugned deserves to be modified appropriately in these appeals only.
For what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, the order impugned is modified in the manner that while other directions and requirements of the order i.e., of releasing the appellants on bail in the event of arrest on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000/-, shall remain intact but the other part of the order, requiring the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-, shall stand annulled.

Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022

Index of AB Matters here.

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Posted on October 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of PHHC held as follows:

From Paras 11-14,

11. As per the settled proposition of law as enumerated hereinabove, proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are not to be initiated in every case where offences are purportedly made out. In fact, the said proceedings are to be initiated only in a situation, where the Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. This shows that such a course of filing a complaint will only be adopted, if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. In the present case, no such finding has been recorded, as has already been mentioned above and even otherwise, the dispute is between the parties, who are closely related being brothers.
12. In fact, one of the criteria for proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. would be where due to the false statement, one party has succeeded in getting a favourable order, which otherwise, he would not have got. Therefore, if the false statement affects the very nature of the order passed by the Court, then, that itself can be one of the circumstances, where proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. ought to be initiated. In the present case, assuming that a false statement had been made either in the written statement or by virtue of filing of affidavits, those pleadings/averments did not affect the fate of the case. In fact the petitioner did obtain a decree in his favour. Therefore, there is no apparent illegality in the orders dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) and 08.02.2017 (Annexure P-2).
13. Having examined the matter in its entirety, I also find that the dispute in question is between close relatives. Certain pleadings are filed in civil/criminal proceedings and the defendants in a civil proceeding take their defence, which in the present case was denying the right of ownership of the petitioner-complainant. Every person has a right to defend his case and he can take many defence pleas. Taking up a plea by itself would not amount to giving false evidence. Further, in the present case, in view of the discussion above, it would certainly not be expedient in the interest of justice to proceed against the respondents.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove as also the relationship between the parties and the civil proceedings having culminated in favour of the petitioner, as such no advantage has been taken by the respondents by virtue of their allegedly false pleadings/affidavits. Therefore, it would certainly not be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Index of Perjury cases here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: October 2022

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

State of Uttaranchal and Anr Vs Sunil Kumar Vaish and Ors on 16 Aug 2011

Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022

Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022