Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022

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.

Index of AB Matters here.

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Posted on October 6 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.

Sangeeta Sekhri Vs Sharat Sekhri and Anr on 27 Sep 2022

Posted on October 5 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of PHHC held as follows, when a knife was in bed with non-husband but wants alimony from husband,

Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to lead any evidence which could reverse the finding of extra-marital affairs of appellant-wife and respondent No.2. The enquiry report (Ex.P1) coupled with the evidence given by PW4-Rajbir Singh, PW5- Balwinder Singh and PW7-Mohammad Gulab, servant of the respondent-husband’s house consistently proved that appellant-wife was living in adultery.
The only question for consideration now is whether the appellant-wife is entitled for permanent alimony.

Sangeeta Sekhri Vs Sharat Sekhri and Anr on 27 Sep 2022

Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022

Posted on October 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has passed an Order in a proceeding u/s 482 CrPC stating that,

From Para 10,

10) The petitioners, in effect, are aggrieved of the impugned petition filed by respondent No.1 against them and the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate on the said petition. So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution. So, the trial Magistrate, after obtaining the response from the husband and his relatives etc. is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings. The learned Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order of monetary compensation if he, upon going through the response of the husband and his relatives, finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or that no case for grant of interim monetary compensation is made out. Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not, in strict sense, criminal in nature, as such, bar to alter/revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings.

Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Sec 12 Of DV Act | Magistrate Can Recall the Order of Interim Monetary Compensation If He Finds Husband Is Unnecessarily Roped In The Case: J&K&L HC

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/proceedings-under-section-12-of-domestic-violence-act-cannot-be-equated-with-lodging-a-criminal-complaint-jammu-kashmir-ladakh-high-court-6176.asp

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/jkl-high-court-dv-act-section-12-proceedings-criminal-complaint-208360

Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022

Posted on October 2 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows:

From Para 15,

15. In this background, we find that the appellant was a necessary party to the proceedings before the High Court. The present appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground. However, there is another more serious ground on which the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

From Para 21,

21. This Court, in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and others8 has held that non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud. It has been held that the judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity. We find that respondent No.9 has not only suppressed a material fact but has also tried to mislead the High Court. On this ground also, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days)

Posted on September 29 by ShadesOfKnife

So as per revised strategy here, I filed the Crl.P. at AP High Court seeking quash of DVC (i know DVC won’t be quashed on the ground of induced delay) or alternatively order for early disposal as per Sec 12(5) of PWDV Act 2005. This is listed for Cause list Motion Hearing before Court-19 Justice Ninala Jayasurya at Serial No.29 for 29-Sep-2022. Once this is decided (hopefully at admission stage itself), the WP(PIL) will be filed with 15 Respondents.

The copy of the Petition is here.

2022-09-22 Quash or Speedy Trail in my DVC v0.6

2022-09-29

I got a wonderful audience before the Hon’ble Justice Ninala Jayasurya for about 5 mins. I spoke about

my role in the HC case and the trial court case
what was the stage of the trail court case
how the dvc complainant absented herself from Feb 2020 and her counsel absented himself from Dec 2021 in the case
stated the time limit mandated in the law and the actual elapsed time in the dvc
prayed from quash of dvc due to abuse of process of law and in the alternative, pass directions for time-bound disposal of dvc

The Hon’ble Justice Ninala Jayasurya heard me patiently and asked the PP if any objections. PP politely said they are only seeking early disposal and there is no objection to the same. Judge then asked me is early disposal okay and I said, yes your honour and then he asked me is 3 months okay, i answered in affirmative. The Judge proceeded to dictate the order. Ufffffffffff!

2022-10-01

Here is the order online. So very happy with the findings and reasonings given in the order. Seems I made a good argument before the High Court judge with proper supporting material papers… Learnt some very important lessons in the way…

Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022

Now, to shoot the PIL on the endless delays in disposal of DV cases in the State of AP… Now, head back here.

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors

Posted on September 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A constitution bench of Apex Court is going to decide the fate of AIBE exam (SLP(C)No.22337/2008)…

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 20 Sep 2022

2022-Sep-27

Here is the causelist for 27 Sep 2022 and 28 Sep 2022

2022-09-27 Court-3 Constitution Bench

And here is the Order passed on 27-Sep-2022, saying Part-Heard.

2022-09-27 Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 27 Sep 2022

2022-Sep-28

Arguments heard. Hearing Concluded. Judgment reserved.

2022-09-28 Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 28 Sep 2022

Awaiting the pronouncement of the judgment.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022

Posted on September 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of Apex Court held as follows:

In respect of the aforesaid, it is clarified for the benefit of the parties with consent that the procedure to be followed by the Bar Council of India would be that persons who are in jobs and are desirous of taking the examination, will in advance inform the Bar Council of the factum of their employment and on being successful in the examination, an undertaking would be required that within six months they will take a call whether to resign or join the profession or they will still continue to work in their respective jobs, in which case, they would on a subsequent date being so desirous of joining the profession require to take the examination afresh and in case of resignation give proof thereof.

Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022

This is a connected matter to the Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors matter (pending from 2008)

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Posted on September 15 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full Bench of the Apex Court held as follows regarding a query, whether a PoA Holder can file a complaint u/s 200 CrPC in a NI Act case.

From Para 26,

26) While holding that there is no serious conflict between the decisions in MMTC (supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner:
(i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of N.I Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent.
(ii) The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint.
However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.
(iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case.
(iv) In the light of section 145 of N.I Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
(v) The functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to another person.

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Citations: [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 44], [2013 SCALE 11 360], [2013 KERLT 4 21], [2014 AIR SC 630], [2014 CALLT SC 1 53], [2014 PLJR 1 216], [2013 OLR 2 884], [2013 BC 4 212], [2013 CTC 5 560], [2014 SCC 11 790], [2013 CLA SC 117 4], [2013 COMPCAS SC 180 258], [2014 AKR 1 314], [2013 KLJ 4 279], [2014 LW 1 698], [2013 PLR 4 733], [2013 NCC 2 854], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 649], [2013 KHC 3 885], [2013 WLN SC 4 25], [2013 ALLCC 83 583], [2014 LW CRL 1 154], [2014 SCC CIV 4 343], [2013 SUPREME 6 705], [2014 CRLJ SC 576], [2013 AIOL 611], [2013 JT 12 524], [2013 SLT 8 133], [2014 DCR SC 1 135], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 839], [2013 AIC 131 160], [2014 ECRN 1 486], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 307], [2013 JCC NI SC 4 214], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 382], [2014 JLJR SC 1 48], [2013 BOMCR SC 6 424], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 306], [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 4048], [2013 MLJ CRL 4 213]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47858029/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ae4b0149711415b31

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/a-c-narayanan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-4779

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Posted on September 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of a Sessions Court in Mumbai held as follows:

From Para 5,

5] Perusal of the application under Section 12 of the D. V. Act filed by the applicant has several references to the alleged domestic violence committed by the respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that he resides separately and not with the appellant or the respondent No. 1. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his impugned order has observed that since the respondent No. 1 never resided with the appellant in any shared household he cannot be considered to be the respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. He, therefore, omitted him from the array of the respondents in the main application.

From Para 6,

6] Such an observation of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate however, is wholly misplaced. It is for the simple reason that the proviso to Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act makes it very clear that an aggrieved wife can also file a complaint against a relative of the husband. The Act nowhere mandates that an aggrieved person can seek relief only against the persons who have shared household with her. Had that been so, it would have been very convenient to cause violence or any other trouble to the aggrieved person through the relatives not sharing the same household and yet remained out of the clutches of the D. V. Act. Rather, holding that any relative of the husband if not sharing or shared the same household cannot be a respondent would amount to giving licence to those relatives to commit violence to the aggrieved person and thereby rendering the very Act meaningless. That just cannot be and certainly was not the intention while enacting the said statute. As observed earlier, there are sufficient references to show that the respondent No. 1 was also a party to the domestic violence committed to the appellant. As such, the proceedings against him was certainly tenable. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was obviously wrong in holding that the respondent No. 1 since not shared the household with the appellant could not be a respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. Consequently, the impugned order cannot sustain.

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Index of DV Cases here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Udho Thakur Vs State of Jharkhand on 29 Sep 2022

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Sangeeta Sekhri Vs Sharat Sekhri and Anr on 27 Sep 2022

Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022

Ram Kumar Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 Sep 2022

Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days)

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors

Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022