No Shared household, DVC is not maintainable.
Citation: [2017 (2) LW (Crl.) 399]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9488656/
The index page is here.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010
The US-Resident Dumbo filed DV Case to grab up her father’s property that he had made into the name of his grandson. Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji of Delhi High Court has delivered this judgment wherein the false claim of a woman was crushed due to lack of Shared Household criteria by showing her, her right place and dismissed this Appeal.
Citations: [2010 (118) DRJ 707], [MANU/DE/1946/2010], [2010(7) RCR(Criminal) 1145]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176922704/
Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.
Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015
No Shared household hence no DVC.
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70402378/
The index page is here.
A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015
Justice Shri Seetarama Murthi has delivered this judgment.
4. (f) Coming next to the contention that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the case on file against the present petitioners for the reason that the petitioners have no ‘domestic relationship’ and that they have never shared the household or lived together in a shared household with the 2nd respondent and her husband, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Under Section 12 of the Act, an aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act.
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173889445/
The index page is here.
Domestic Violence Judgments
Here is a list of Judgments under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and various facets of violence/cruelty within Matrimonial relationships under various Statutes even before this Act. Life Cycle of a Domestic Violence case under PWDV Act 2005 here.
Bare Act (along with Statement of Objects and Reasons) is here and Rules are here. A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.
1971-1980
- Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975 [Definition of Mental Cruelty; Burden of Proof; Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Condonation of Cruelty]
1981-1990
1991-2000
- V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [defined the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition]
2001-2005
- MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about Interlocutory Order]
2006-2010
- Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another on 7 July, 2006 (Right to Marry a person of one’s choice)
- S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 (Supreme Court defined ‘Shared Household‘) (Shared-household holding overruled – Satish Chander Ahuja, SC 3J, 2020, paras 64 & 84(ii))
- Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 (Mental Cruelty defined)
- Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 16 September, 2008 [BomHC: Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.]
- V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009 ()
- Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009 [KarHC: Audi Alterum Partem, Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance]
- Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010 (Delhi High Court)
- Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010 (BHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties)
- Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010 (DelHC: From my favorite judge but bad judgment; deny maintenance in DVC as there was maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
- Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs Mamta Pandey on 1 Sep 2010 [DelHC: Definition of Residence for Jurisdiction purpose]
- Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 [GujHC: Since wife was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, Court denied interim maintenance in DVC]
2011-2015
- Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011 (Women can also be made respondents)
- Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 [GHC: Custody cannot be given to non-custodial parents under DV Act; Only visitation permissible to non-custodial parent]
- Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 (Found 1-year limit in DV cases preponderous but the DV Case was quashed due to earlier MCD) (3J bench in Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan, 13 Apr 2022, paras 15, 18, 20: no 1-year limit on s.12 application)
- V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012 (DV Conduct of parties prior to PWDV Act are to be considered; Mental Cruelty)
- Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012 [SC: Unless there is a declaration of nullity/void of the marriage by a competent Court or authority, a aggrieved person can take advantage of benefits under DV Act.]
- Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013 (Quashing of false DVC on relatives of husband)
- Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
- Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013 (SC: No relationship in the nature of marriage, no DV can apply, No maintenance)
- Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children]
- Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
- Santosh Sashkant Dhonde Vs Sarika Santosh Dhonde and Ors on 11 September, 2014 [BomHC: Hearing before Interim Orders]
- Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014 (JMFC Court, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh)
- A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015 (APHC: 2 grounds for quashing a DV Case, No shared household, any other case dismissed on same allegations; overruled by SC in Prabha Tyagi here)
- Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015 [Ongole JCJC:]
- Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015 (APHC: If any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions)
- Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
- Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015 (Dipak Misra says, Judicially separated folks are also within the ambit of Aggrieved person)
2016-2020
- Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016 (Court can allow amendments to complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court)
- Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016 (Unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of DVC)
- Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016 [KarHC: Hold an inquiry and then recorded finding as to grant interim relief or not]
- Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016 [Supreme Court strikes down words ‘adult male‘ from the definition of Respondent u/s 2(q) and also the proviso to sec 2(q)]
- Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016 [AllHC: A Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C against a judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions under
Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is maintainable] - Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about final, intermediate and Interlocutory Orders]
- Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017 (SC: ‘Domestic Relationship’ Necessary To Permit A Party To Occupy ‘Shared Household’)
- Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
- Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Jallarapu Laxman Rao Vs Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu on 1 November, 2017 (AP HC: No Revision u/s 397/401 CrPC, as Sec 29 PWDV Act provides Revision/Appeal)
- Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
- S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018 (DHC: Frame issues after hearing both parties)
- Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018 (HPHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children)
- Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [DHC: no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
- Lalita Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018 (Live-in partner can also file DV case)
- Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha case (File income affidavit as Prescribed in Kusum Sharma)
- Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019 (SC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Upheld Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015 (CalHC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 [SC: BIL pays interim maintenance]
- Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
- Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (SC: No allegations of domestic violence; No shared household)
- NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019 (Karnataka High Court)
- Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
- N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020 (Held that 1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases relying on Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 but violates the law declared later in Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022 and hence deemed overruled)
- Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020 (482 CrPC against DVC is not maintainable; Magistrate u/s 28(2) can apply judicial mind of Preliminary objections)
- Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (SC: Overruled SR Batra judgment regd Shared Household concept; but also emphasized on the alternate accommodation)
- S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020 ()
2021-2025
- Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr on 18 Jan 2021 ()
- Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021 (482 CrPC against DVC is maintainable as per Satish Chander)
- Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
- Puttaraju Vs Shivakumari on 01 Apr 2021 (MHC: Time limitation applies only for offence u/s 31 but not for the application u/s 12 of PWDV Act 2005)
- Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021 (RajHC: non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’)
- Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
- Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (DHC: Daughter-in-law can be evicted but an alternate accommodation must be provided)
- Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022 (BHC: Relatives who have no shared house-holding can also be respondents as per proviso to Sec 2(q))
- Ali Hamid Daruwala Vs Nahida Rishad Cooper and Anr on 28 Feb 2023 (BHC: Relying on Prabha Tyagi, BHC held that no shared householding requirement is necessary)
- Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
- Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022 [SC: Limitation does not apply to Sec 12 applications under PWDV Act]
- Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022 [DelHC: Mere fleeting or casual visits/living, without permanency, at different places shall not make it a shared household]
- Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (SC: DIR is not mandatory; No shared holding required)
- Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
- Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
- P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
- Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
- Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (JKHC: After WS, Magistrate may dismiss the DVC and cancel any interim orders passed)
- Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disclose previous maintenance cases)
- Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: My Own case: Disposal of DVC in 60 days)
- Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 10 Oct 2022 (SC: Upheld BHC Judgment stating casual visits/stays do not qualify as temporary stay/residence)
- S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022 [MadHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
- Rajesh and Anr Vs Station House Officer and Ors on 05 Dec 2022 [KerHC: the existence of a domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondent is the sine qua non for seeking relief under the DV Act]
- Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023 [KarHC: Rental amount in lieu of accommodation in shared household can be given]
- Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023 [SC: No costs can be imposed on DV complainant for not proceeding with trial]
- Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023 (PHHC: Interim Orders passed by Magistrate are appealable. Sessions Court can pass Interim Orders)
- Abhishek Agarwala and Anr Vs Smti Komal Poddar on 01 Mar 2023 (MegHC: Don’t insist on appearance of Respondents on each and every adjournment)
- Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
- Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023 [KarHC: No need to conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before passing Interim reliefs; Over rules Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009]
- Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 [BomHC: DV allegedly committed outside India can also be tried by Indian Courts]
- Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023 [KarHC: No Strict proof of marriage required; No validity of marriage to be checked]
- Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and Ors Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 24 Apr 2023 [Relies on Kunapareddy, Kamatchi, ]
- Sanjeev Kumar and Ors Vs Sushma Devi on 01 Jun 2023 [HimHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties]
- Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [DelHC: Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
- Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023 [KarHC: No maintenance to idle sitting wife]
- Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023 [APHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
- Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable]
- Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023 [MPHC: Sections 21 and 31 of PWDV Act are not unconstitutional]
- Nikhat Parveen Vs Rafiqui and Ors on 17 Oct 2023 [DHC: Biological father must pay child maintenance in a DVC]
- M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023 [MadHC: Approach the Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues]
- Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023 [KarHC: A protection order under DV Act does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act]
- Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024 [BomHC: Mere casual visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household]
- Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted]
- Palaparthi Shebha and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 16 Jul 2024 [APHC: Interim maintenance order is made effective from the date of petition and not from date of Order]
- Shikha Lall Vs Prince Agarwal on 7 Nov 2024 [DelHC: Never resided in New Delhi so no jurisdiction under DV Act]
- Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025 [AllHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members; Verify shared household condition satisfied or not before issuing notices; Dispose within 60 days]
- Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [APHC: Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
- Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
- Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: there is no requirement for the personal presence/appearance of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences]
- Rama Vs Sandeep Purkayastha and Anr on 01 May 2025 [West/THC/Delhi: Arrears for the purpose of interim maintenance shall start from the date of compliance i.e., filing of the income affidavit and not from the date of application seeking interim maintenance]
- Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025 [Landmark judgment to rectify baseless Orders of maintenance by Family Court judges in Karnataka]
- Abhijit Ankush Shelke and Ors Vs Shubhangi Abhijit Shelke and Anr on 09 May 2025 [SC: Voice sample may be compelled as per Sec 28(2) of PWDV Act and Article 20(3) will not apply]
- Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs Vidhi Rawal on 19 May 2025 [SC: High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005]
2026-2030
- Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026 [BHC: No suo moto perjury proceedings initiated]
- Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026
- Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 [CalHC : A wife can file a DV Act case from her temporary residence]
- Dinesh kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026
- Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026 [AllHC: DVC Quashed against relatives other than husband]
- Jyotirmoy Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 5 May 2026 [CalHC: Ad-interim maintenance also only after RvN Affidavits; No DV still maintenance to daughter (This is perverse and hopefully be set aside by Supreme Court in a future case) ]
- Rakesh Sharma Vs Manju Devi and Ors on 12 May 2026 [Interim Maintenance to wife modified from Date of Application to Date of Order]
- Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026 [KarHC: Interim Maintenance to wife set aside as she is having more income than husband]
MASTER SITEMAP here.
NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019
No Shared household. DVC is not maintainable.
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70402378/
The index page is here.
Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 15 November, 2018
Honorabe CJI Justice S.A. Bobde (as he is called) has observed this to be a Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass appellants.
Citations: 2018 SCC Online SC 2447, 2019 (1) PLJR (SC) 215
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14567786/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Umesh Kumar Vs State of AP and Anr on 6 September, 2013
In this judgment, Supreme Court held that, Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of such application before the court concerned.
In the para 12,
12. In view thereof, if any person has forged in a letter under the name of the Samithi and forged the signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., the matter being of grave nature requires investigation and, in view of above, we cannot find fault with the action initiated against Umesh Kumar, appellant. Once criminal law is put in motion and after investigation the charge sheet is filed, it requires scrutiny in the court of law. However, before the charges could be framed, Umesh Kumar, appellant, approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge sheet. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the court cannot look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed along with the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of such application before the court concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of the charge. However, the inherent power of the court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. (Vide: Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128; Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitulh Chanchani & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2796; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; and Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 437)
Citations: [JT 2013 (12) SC 213], [2014 ALL SCR 661], [2013 AD SC 9 581], [2014 AIR SC 1106], [2014 AJR 1 350], [2014 ALD CRI 1 304], [2014 ALLCC 84 850], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 479], [2013 JLJR 4 151], [2013 KLJ 4 334], [2013 PLJR 4 284], [2015 RLW SC 1 391], [2013 SCALE 11 28], [2013 SCC 10 591], [2014 SCC L&S 2 237], [2014 SCJ 2 209], [2013 UC 3 1918], [2014 SCC CRI 1 338], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 809], [2013 AIC 130 53], [2013 SUPREME 6 323], [2013 AIOL 584], [2013 AIR SC 6062], [2013 SLT 7 656], [2013 AIR SCW 6062]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194914590/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af3fe4b0149711415ef0
G.Sagar Suri and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 January, 2000
In this judgment, Supreme Court has held that, there is no bar to pursue Quash at High Court under sec 482 CrPC, even when a Discharge was pending in the Trial Court under sec 239 CrPC or 245 CrPC.
It was submitted by Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the second respondent, that the appellants have already filed an application in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate for their discharge and that this Court should not interfere in the criminal proceedings which are at the threshold. We do not think that on filing of any application for discharge, High Court Cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In this connection, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 749 and Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitul H. Chanchani & Anr., [1998] 7 SCC 698, wherein it has been specifically held that though the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against them when no offence has been made out against them and still why must they undergo the agony of a criminal trial.
Citations: 2000 C Cr. LR(SC) 136 : JT 2000(1) SC 360, (2000)2 SCC 636, J.T. 2000 Vol. 1 page 126
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1699144/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Ankem Madhava Rao and Anr Vs Simhadri Rama Rao and Anr on 5 October, 2015
Based on the earlier two judgments here and here, Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti of AP HC has noted in this judgment that,
This Court in a decision in A.P. Minerals Development Corporation Limited Hyderabad v. M/s.Trimex Minerals Pvt.Ltd., and another decision in Bhoopal Reddy and another v. K.Lakshmi Bhai and another held that the practice of marking the documents in the interlocutory application only shall be continued. It is thus obvious that the documents filed by either of the parties shall have to be marked, unless the parties specifically opt for not marking either on the ground of inadmissibility or for some other reasons of their own.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
