Pramod Vs Umesh at Poonam on 01 Mar 2024
Index of Divorce judgements is here.
Month: March 2024
B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 2023
A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows,
From Paras 3 and 4,
B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 20233. The petitioner who is the husband filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C seeking a direction from the learned Magistrate for producing the passport copy of PW1. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground that 91 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked against the witness and it would amount to testimonial compulsion.
4. The document sought to be produced is the passport of PW1. PW1 is a witness, not accused. In fact, in her cross examination on 01.11.2022, she stated that she can produce the passport if necessary. In the said circumstances, when the witness herself has volunteered to produce the passport, the same can be permitted. PW1 shall produce her passport for the purpose of cross examination.
This Order was challenged before the Apex Court here.
Mainoddin Vs State of Karnataka on 02 Feb 2024
A division bench of Apex Court held that, ‘vague,general and omnibus allegations against the family members/relatives implicating them in matrimonial disputes are an abuse of process of
law.’
From Paras 4 and 5,
Mainoddin Vs State of Karnataka on 02 Feb 20244. The present appellant is the younger brother of the husband of complainant-respondent no.2 and the only allegation made against him in the last
paragraph of the complaint is that all the family members of the husband joined together and used foul language against the complainant of not
getting dowry from her family.
5. It is already well settled by this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and also in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022 decided on 08.02.2022, that such vague, general and omnibus allegations against thefamily members/relatives implicating them in matrimonial disputes are an abuse of process of law.
Index of landmark quash judgements is here.
Bezawada Chandravadana Vs State of Telangana and Anr
A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,
On 15-Mar-2024,
Bezawada Chandravadana Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 15 Mar 20243. Heard Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The counsel submits that the petitioner is the complainant and the respondent No. 2 who is her husband, is facing the proceeding in CC No. 249 of 2012 before the Magistrate’s Court at Hyderabad. In course of the said proceeding, the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and on the basis of her response in the cross-examination, the respondent No. 2 had filed the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for a direction on the petitioner to produce her passport for the purpose of further cross-examination. According to the counsel, the said prayer was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate under her order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P/4). However, the High Court under the impugned order has erroneously ordered for production of the petitioner’s passport to substantiate her claim on the travel from USA to India.
4. The counsel would argue that this was an incorrect decision by the High Court as in the application filed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was not arrayed as a party. It will also have implication for the privacy of the petitioner.
Earlier order from Telangana High Court here.
Joseph Salvaraj A Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 4 Jul 2011
A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,
From Para 11,
11.The Appellant, thereafter, was constrained to file the petition under Section 482 of the Code in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, with a prayer for quashing of the FIR bearing C.R. No. I-371/2006 registered with Odhav Police Station and to stay further investigation in the case. The said
application came to be considered before the learned Single Judge on 11.1.2007. By that time, charge sheet was already filed before the Competent Criminal Court. Thus, learned Single Judge, was of the opinion that it was not a fit case to be entertained and refused to hear the petition on merits, even though the appellant was given liberty to file an application for his discharge before the Trial Court. It may be noted that even in its impugned order the learned Single Judge has emphasized that he had not considered the case on merits. Thus the Appellant’s petition was dismissed and interim order granted in his favour was vacated.
From Paras 15 and 16,
15. The allegations in the F.I.R. clearly discloses a civil dispute between the parties and the FIR seems to have been filed only with an intention to harass and humiliate the Appellant. This was a pre-emptive move by the Complainant.
16. A summary Civil Suit under Order 37 Rule II of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CPC’) has already been filed by Dharmendra P. Rami @ Laläbhai against the Appellant and the Respondent No.4, Complainant herein, before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad claiming a sum of Rs. 10 lacs together with interest thereon. In the said suit an unconditional leave to defend has already been granted to the Appellant and the matter is still pending. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it was contended that it is a fit case where the FIR deserves to be quashed otherwise the same would amount to abuse of the process of law.
From Paras 21-23,
21. Criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 of the IPC and 406 thereof deals with punishment to be awarded to the accused, if found guilty for commission of the said offence i.e. with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
22. Section 420 of the IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the IPC to constitute an offence. Under the aforesaid section, it is inbuilt that there has to be a dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is sine qua non to hold the accused guilty for commission of the said offence. Categorical and microscopic examination of the FIR certainly does not reflect any such dishonest intention ab initio on the part of the appellant.
23. Section 506 of the IPC deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance have been defined in Section 503 of the IPC but the FIR lodged by complainant does not show or reflect that any such threat to cause injury to person or of property was ever given by the Appellant to the Complainant.
24. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the Appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the Complainant’s FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examinedwhether the offences alleged to have been committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant’s FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. ornot.
25. In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of propertyor breach of trust by the Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against theAppellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation.
From Para 27,
Joseph Salvaraj A Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 4 Jul 201127. In fact, all these questions have been elaborately discussed by this Court in the most oft quoted judgment reported in 1992 (Suppl) 1 SCC 335 State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, where seven cardinal principles have been carved out before cognizance of offences, said to have been committed, by the accused is taken. The case in hand unfortunately does not fall in that category where cognizance of the offence could have been taken by the court, at least after having gone through the F.I.R., which discloses only a civil dispute.
Index of Quash judgments is here.
Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors on 29 Jan 2024
A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,
Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors on 29 Jan 2024We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court for dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, having regard to the ratio of the judgment of this Court delivered on 04.07.2011 in the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2011 (7) SCC 59. That was a case arising from the quashing plea of an F.I.R., where chargesheet was submitted after institution of the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. A Coordinate Bench of this Court opined that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not on the basis of the F.I.R., chargesheet and other documents.
Index of Quash judgments is here.
Abhishek Gour Vs State of MP on 31 Aug 2023
A full bench of the Apex Court passed this order,
From Para 8, (Police merely replicated the contents of the FIR and added nothing further on the strength of their investigation, observes Supreme Court of India, karma!)
8. Om Prakash, Bhawna’s father, also made a statement before the police on 08.09.2013 on the same lines. He said that her marriage was performed at Indore on 02.07.2007 and as per his status, he had given cash,gold, jewellery, clothes etc., totalling to ₹.5 lakhs, in dowry. He said that, whenever Bhawna came to meet them, she used to tell him and all the neighbours that her husband, Nimish, mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, and brothers-in-law, Abhishek and Sourabh, used to tell her that her father had given nothing in dowry and when she went to her parental home, she should bring .2 lakhs in cash, a car and gold jewellery. ₹ He stated that they had been harassing his daughter mentally and physically for dowry. He alleged that, on Karvachauth day, Bhawna’s mother-in-law had demanded 100 sarees but he had refused. Renubala, Bhawna’s mother, also made a statement on 08.09.2013 on identical lines. Two of their neighbours, Sushila Bai andMohan, also gave statements on the same day, supporting Bhawna’s version. According to them, whenever Bhawna came to meet her parents, she used to tell them that her in-laws were torturing her mentally and physically for dowry.On the other hand, Shailendra and Radhey Shyam, who lived in the neighbourhood where Nimish’s father had his residence, stated to the effect that there were no demands made of Bhawna or her family for dowry and that she was never harassed on that ground. In their final report dated20.09.2013, the police merely replicated the contents of the FIR and added nothing further on the strength of their investigation.
From Para 9, (Attempts to terrorize)
9. Certain other facts are also of pertinence and may be noted. Abhishek entered judicial service as a Civil Judge six or seven months after the marriage of Bhawna with Nimish. He was posted at Ujjain and, thereafter,at Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh. Kusum Lata used to reside with Abhishek. Saurabh, Bhawna’s other brother-in-law, is an architect and was working at Delhi since the year 2007. Nimish made written representations to the police authorities at Narsinghpur on 09.09.2012 and 17.11.2012 complaining of intimidation by and at the behest of Bhawna. Prior thereto, an anonymous complaint was made to the Chief Justice, Madhya Pradesh High Court, against Abhishek, making scandalous allegations to the effect that he was undeserving of judicial office. A complaint was also made to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, purportedly in the name of one Sanyogita Mishra. Again, the allegations therein were directed against Abhishek.
From Para 11,
11. This being the factual backdrop, we may note at the very outset that the contention that the appellants’ quash petition against the FIR was liable to be dismissed, in any event, as the chargesheet in relation thereto was submitted before the Court and taken on file, needs mention only to be rejected. It is well settled that the High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition [See Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and others {(2011) 7 SCC 59}]. This principle was reiterated in Anand Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and another [(2019) 11 SCC 706]. This issue, therefore, needs no further elucidation on our part.
From Para 13,
13. Instances of a husband’s family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
From Para 21, (unexplained delay)
Abhishek Gour Vs State of MP on 31 Aug 202321. Most damaging to Bhawna’s case is the fact that she did nothing whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in February, 2009, and filed a complaint in the year 2013 alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings.
Index of Quash judgments is here.
Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024
A single judge of Delhi High Court held as follows,
From Paras 11 and 12,
11. He further submits that cognizance of the charge-sheet filed by the police was taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate only against accused no.1, that is, Mr. Yogesh Gupta, and summons were issued to him alone vide order dated 22.12.2020. Later, by an order dated 06.07.2022, summons were issued also against other accused, including the petitioners herein. He submits that this is a procedure unknown to law.
12. He further submits that charges inter alia against the petitioners have been framed on 24.01.2023 in absence of the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners, due to an inadvertent error, had noted the next date of hearing as 24.02.2023, which is also reflected on the official website of the Courts, and had not appeared on 24.01.2023.
From Paras 17 and 18,
17. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors.,(Supra), the Supreme Court highlighted the concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC and in the increasing tendency of the complainant to implicate the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes.
18. The Supreme Court also placed reliance on the precedents on this issue in Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273; Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741, and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 and held that in the absence of any specific and distinct allegations being made against the family members of the husband and where there are only general and omnibus allegations, the FIR registered against such family members is liable to be quashed. It was further held that, in fact, in such cases if the family members are forced to go through the tribulations of trial, it would inflict severe scars upon them and such exercise must be discouraged.
From Para 22, (hehehehe)
21. As clever case of drafting, specific allegations have been made dating back to around 1994-95 against Mr.Vimal Aggarwal, the other maternal uncle of the husband of the respondent no.2 and his wife Ms.Anu Aggarwal. Specific allegations against the petitioners dating back to 18.07.2007 have been made. As noted hereinabove, the complaint has been filed almost 10 years thereafter.
From Para 23,
23. In Mahmood Ali and Others (Supra), the Supreme Court emphasised that the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not and, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, try to read in between the lines.
From Para 24,
Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 202424. Where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that through her lawyer she would get a complaint properly drafted making some specific allegations against each of the family members. If only on such averment, the family members are to face agony of the trial, it would defeat the ends of the justice. In my opinion, therefore, the Court must scrutinise the complaint/FIR to determine whether the allegations are a case of clever drafting or have at least some element of truth in the same. Though the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial, the Court also cannot be a mere spectator and refuse to exercise the power that is vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., where it finds that the continuation of such proceedings would defeat the ends of the justice and would amount to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the accused and be an abuse of the criminal process.
Index of Quash judgments is here.
Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024
A single judge of Delhi High Court allowed wife to file fresh affidavit in a 125 CrPC maintenance proceedings, after husband files a 340 CrPC perjury application.
From Para 8,
8. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
The maintenance granted to the wife is as a measure of social justice and the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is with an objective to protect women and children from vagrancy and destitution. The Family Courts have been established for adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure and to deal with family disputes in an expeditious and speedy manner. Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that nothing in sub-section 1 or sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by one party and denied by another party. Thus, the objective remains to reach at the truth of the facts, which is a guiding star for the proceedings under the Family Courts Act. Even in terms of Section 14 of the Family Court Act, the Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, information or matter that may in its opinion assists it to deal effectively with the dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Keeping in perspective the aforesaid objective and provisions, the technicalities cannot be permitted to prevail. The learned Family Court after appreciation of the facts correctly permitted the filing of the fresh affidavit instead of amendment of earlier affidavit to enable the parties to bring out any inconsistencies or discrepancies for consideration.
From Para 10, (Perjury proceedings are intact)
Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 202410. It may further be observed that any direction by the Trial Court to file a fresh affidavit does not obliterate the earlier affidavit filed by respondent No.1 on record. Appropriate proceedings can always be considered by the Court in accordance with law in case the Court is of the opinion that a false affidavit had been filed in the proceedings by either of the parties. The same does not in any manner adversely impact the application, if any, preferred by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Index of Perjury proceedings is here. Index of Maintenance proceedings is here.
Kuldeep Kumar Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Ors on 20 Feb 2024
A full bench of Apex Court passed order to initiate perjury proceedings against a Presiding Officer of conducting the election to the Post of Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, as follows,
From Paras 40-42,
Kuldeep Kumar Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Ors on 20 Feb 202440. Further, we are of the considered view that a fit and proper case is made out for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in respect of the conduct of Shri Anil Masih, the Presiding Officer. In paragraph 2 of the order dated 19 February 2024, we have recorded the statement which was made by the Presiding Officer when he appeared personally before this Court. As Presiding Officer, Shri Anil Masih could not have been unmindful of the consequences of making a statement which, prima facie, appears to be false to his knowledge in the course of judicial proceedings.
41. The Registrar (Judicial) is accordingly directed to issue a notice to show cause to Shri Anil Masih of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation who was the Presiding Officer at the election which took place on 30 January 2024, as to why steps should not be initiated against him under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The notice shall be made returnable on 15 March 2024.
42. Shri Anil Masih shall have an opportunity to file his response to the notice to be issued in pursuance of the above directions in the meantime.
Previous Order where false statement was made in paragraph 2.
Kuldeep Kumar Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Ors on 19 Feb 20242. During the course of the hearing, the Returning Officer Mr Anil Masih is present before this Court. Responding to a query of the Court, Mr Masih stated that he had, besides signing the ballot papers, put his mark at eight ballot papers during the course of the counting of the votes. He states that he did so as he found that the ballot papers were defaced.
Index of Perjury judgments is here.
