498A IPC Judgments

Posted on January 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here I will list all judgments both from Supreme Court of India and Various High Courts that may be used in the false cases filed u/s 498A IPC

Once you get hold of your case documents on First date of appearance in Court, see if there are any possible grounds to come out of false cases. This is possible in 2 ways.

By filing a Discharge Petition u/s 239 CrPC at the Trial Court where this false 498A IPC case is filed.
By filing a Quash Petition u/s 482 CrPC at the High Court in that State, where this false 498A IPC case is filed.

This page here contains the provisions available under the above provisions along with Judgments.

Supreme Court Judgments

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif on 11 May 2011

Posted on January 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A Hindu woman who had converted to Islam and got 2 kids from a muslim husband, after he divorced her via Triple Talaq, re-converted to Hinduism and married this Pilot. Once Pilot realized the conversion and re-conversion episode, he filed for Nullity petition. At Supreme Court, it was held that, the woman was properly divorce from first marriage and was a Hindu, by the time of her marriage, so nullity was denied.

Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif on 11 May 2011

Citations: [(2011 RCR CIVIL SC 3 640], [2011 SCC 6 139], [2011 JT 14 530], [2011 SCALE 5 601], [2011 AIR SC 2053], [2011 SUPREME 4 57], [2011 ANJ SC 2 61], [2011 AIOL 373], [2011 SCC CIV 3 234], [2011 ALR 86 902], [2011 CTC 4 783], [2011 LW 4 840], [2012 CUTLT 113 193], [2011 AIR SC 3142], [2011 MAHLJ 5 176], [2011 MPLJ 4 28], [2011 AIC 102 47], [2011 GUJLR 3 2006], [2011 CHN 3 11], [2011 ALD SC 5 51], [2011 AWC SC 4 4282], [2012 CLT SC 113 193], [2011 DMC SC 2 400], [2011 GLR 3 2006], [2011 JCR SC 3 280], [2011 KLJ 2 16], [2011 MHLJ 5 176], [2011 MLJ SC 7 827], [2011 OLR SC 2 108], [2011 RLW SC 3 2683]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/731156/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af00e4b0149711415503

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil on 06 March 2019

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The husband did a ‘Marriage deed’ (whatever that means) separation with his first wife and married the second woman.

13.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that the appellant filed the marriage petition for a declaration to declare her marriage with the respondent as null and void on the ground that, at the time of their marriage, the first marriage of the respondent with his first wife was subsisting; that the respondent committed a fraud and suppressed the material fact of his first marriage, and in fact, in the registration form he stated himself to be a bachelor.

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil on 06 March 2019

Citations: [(2019) SCC Online SC 329]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163532688/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c8148999eff4345648def96

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 02 April 2019

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court has quashed this 498A IPC case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband since the complaint is full of junk vague and non-specific allegations.

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 02 April 2019

The Supreme Court had crushed another false DV case by this liar and quashed it on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband here.

Citations: [

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d4be4364a9326071f285522

The Index of these cases is here.

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 18 February 2019

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this false DV case, Justice JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, discussed two contentions but adjudicated only on one aspect.

Vague and General Allegations
No jurisdiction to Karnataka Courts

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 18 February 2019

The Supreme Court crushed this judgment here and quashed the false DV case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband.

Citations: [

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cc473859eff43397d6ab68f

The Index of these cases is here.

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice R.Banumathi has delivered this wonderful judgment in a false DV Case, holding that,

9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants. Appellant No.14 is the husband and appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent. All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.4, 6 and 10 are the wives of appellants No.3, 5 and 9 respectively. Appellants No.7 and 8 are the parents of appellant No.1. Appellants No.1 to 6 and 14 are residents of Chennai. Appellants No.7 to 10 are the residents of State of Rajasthan and appellants No.11 to 13 are the residents of State of Gujarat. Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and appellant No.1 has been at Chennai. Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of the respondent and appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there are averments of alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken away the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of appellant No.14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie case against the other appellants No.3 to 13. Since there are no specific allegations against appellants No.3 to 13, the criminal case of domestic violence against them cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed.

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020

The Lower High Court judgment in the DV Case is here that got quashed in Supreme Court.

The liar filed a false 498A IPC case also on all 14 accused. Except husband and In-laws, the false case on all 11 others got quashed at Karnataka High Court here.

Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 65], [2020 SCC 3 14], [2020 SCC CRI 1 722], [2020 AIR SC 762], [2020 KLT 1 666], [2020 KLJ 1 799]

Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 22 February, 2001

Posted on January 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment, Supreme Court of India had formulated the following procedure while questions are put to witness during cross-examination. Also, per 138 Evidence Act, ‘Chief examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.‘.

It has been held that, where admissibility of document is objected then the Court should tentatively mark the document as an exhibit and can determine the objections at the last stage in the final judgment. But, while holding so, the Apex Court carved an exception regarding admissibility of a document where objection is based on deficient stamp duty, then the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further.
In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 1631 for the proposition that no act of Court shall harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Court to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court, he should be restored to the position he would have occupied.

Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 22 February, 2001

Citations: [2001 ACR SC 1 8], [2001 SCC 3 1], [2001 SUPREME 2 65], [2001 CRILJ 1254], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 452], [2001 UC 1 471], [2001 PLJR 2 132], [2001 GLH 2 545], [2001 SCR 2 29], [2001 CRLJ SC 1254], [2001 SCC CRI 417], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 1 859], [2002 LW CRL 1 115], [2001 ELT SC 134 611], [2001 CGLJ 1 366], [2001 ECC 74 287], [2001 RLW SC 1 169], [2001 UJ SC 1 573], [2001 AIR SC 1158], [2001 JT 3 120], [2001 SCALE 2 167], [2001 AIR SC 841], [2001 CRIMES SC 1 288], [2001 GLR 3 168], [2001 OLR 1 428], [2001 ALD CRI 1 548]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/372318/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad94e4b0149711411c07

AP High Court passed a judgment based on this case law here. Recent Bombay High Court judgment is here.

Sanjay Vs State of Maharashtra on 13 January 2020

Posted on January 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that, though

the Judge may come to a conclusion that, the question is not relevant at that stage, however possibility cannot be ruled out that the said question may become relevant at the later stage, and therefore, it was requested to the Court that, all the questions be taken and subject to objections the answers be taken and then the relevancy or admissibility of the questions may be later on considered.
…
It was also requested to the learned Judge that, in view of the procedure laid down in Bipin Panchal’s case (Supra) the evidence may be recorded even after the objection is raised so that the Appellate Court should be benefited, if it is found at a later stage that any question was or questions were relevant.

Sanjay Vs State of Maharashtra on 13 January 2020

Citations:

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84446763/

Supreme Court judgment is here.

Article on Sec 340 CrPC – When and how to invoke?

Posted on January 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Very good article by Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh regarding many aspects of Perjury under section 340 CrPC.

Article-on-Sec.340-CrPC-When-and-how-to-invoke

Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 19 March 2010

Posted on January 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the SLP at Supreme Court of India, assailing the well reasoned judgment of Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra of Delhi High Court, ordering a Perjurer to pay a fine of 15.1 Lakhs to the victim.

We find no ground to interfere with the well considered judgment passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 19 March 2010

Citations:

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaa0f7607dba382a079e61

The Delhi High Court judgment is available here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

498A IPC Judgments

Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif on 11 May 2011

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil on 06 March 2019

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 02 April 2019

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 18 February 2019

Shyamlal Devda and Ors Vs Parimala on 22 January 2020

Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and Anr on 22 February, 2001

Sanjay Vs State of Maharashtra on 13 January 2020

Article on Sec 340 CrPC – When and how to invoke?

Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 19 March 2010