This is another judgment from AP High Court which talks about Rule 37 of CRP and CO, 1990.
The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
The Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.)
Here is the 1990 edition of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.).
Four judgments of AP High Court that I could find related to Rule 37, are the following:
- Gadu Narayanarao and Anr Vs State Of A.P. and Anr on 3 June, 2015
- Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015
- T.Vinil S/O Srinivasulu Vs State Of A.P. on 22 September, 2015
- P.Trivikrama Prasad Vs State Of A.P. on 29 January, 2016
You can take a look at my 498A case here, where I have used Rule 37 successfully and am filing (absent) petitions via Registered Post – Acknowledge Due to the filing section.
The Amendments made to AP Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 are listed below.
Find the Civil Rules of Practice of AP High Court here.
Om Parkash Syngal and others Vs Aditi Garg on 01 December, 2015
Hon’ble High Court of Patna has quashed the false DV case of the cunning grand-daughter, holding that there is no domestic relationship as there is no shared household between them.
Aditi was just 17 years old when she filed the complaint. The complaint had been filed through her father Arun Garg being the natural guardian.
Kishore Samrite Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 October, 2012
In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has saddled the person with heavy exemplary costs, who lied through the teeth in the writ petition. Actually, Costs of Rs.50,00,000/- was brought down to Rs.5,00,000/-
From Para 4,
Writ Petition No.111 of 2011, even if not complete in its form, was maintainable and the same could not have been dismissed by the Court as the prayer by the appellant in that writ petition for habeas corpus was maintainable in view of the right to life and liberty of the petitioners stated therein, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, was violated. The petition had been filed by the appellant as next friend and had not seen the alleged detenues since 4th January, 2007 when they were last seen in Amethi. According to the appellant the representations made to various authorities had failed to yield any results. Thus, that petition was not liable to be dismissed.
Abuse of the process of Court :Unclean Hands
This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:
(i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any any relief.
(ii) The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.
(iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.
(iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.
(v) A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
(vi) The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs.
(vii) Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
(vii) The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted “visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to
take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it.
Citations: [(2013) 2 SCC 398], [AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 699], [MANU/SC/0892/2012], [JT (2012) 10 SC 393]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172073149/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1be4b0149711415a1b
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
Kuppilli Sridhar Kumar Vs Kuppili Siva Santoshi Ramani Swathi on 28 June, 2013
Another judgments from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where in DVC on brother-in-law and sister-in-law were quashed due to lack of specific allegations.
Guidelines on Grievances Received in The Department of Justice
Some emails may fail. Find the correct/latest contact details by going to that specific department site.
State of Maharashtra Vs Rajesh Laxman Kedar on 10 September, 2018
A judgment from a magistrate from Dhule, in Maharastra. See the bullshitting of this judge,
From Para 13,
It is the defence of accused persons that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Whatever these witnesses have stated is on the information gathered from the informant. It is very natural considering the nature of the charge. In the circumstances, the evidence of the informant is pivotal and the evidence of relative witnesses which has corroborative value always revolves around her evidence. Hence, evidence of such relative witnesses cannot be discarded by branding them as hearsay. Aftermath I have no hesitation to conclude that there is reliable corroboration from these so called interested witnesses.
From Para 14,
Learned advocate for accused persons urged that no independent witness is examined by prosecution and the investigation officer is also not examined. The offence of cruelty generally occurs within the four boundaries of the house. Under these circumstances, non examination of any independent witness can certainly be spared.
Para 17 will give you vomiting,
In the case in hand, informant was ousted from her matrimonial house on 11-02-2009 and she has lodged complaint on 14-02-2009. But she has mentioned in her evidence that, after accused persons had ousted her, she went to railway station and waited their for whole night, in the morning, she went at her elder son’s school to meet him but as her husband and her mother-in-law had prevented her from meeting her son she came back at her parent’s house. Her matrimonial house is at Mumbai and her maternal house is at Dhule, she has lodged report against accused persons at Dhule City Police Station. In view of all the above explanation, in my opinion delay is satisfactorily explained by informant.
Never mind the jurisdiction. Supreme Court’s Yours truly has already destroyed the jurisdiction with weird illogic here.
From Para 18, more vomiting,
With due respect to Hon’ble High Court, in the present case in hand, the alleged ill-treatment was occurred to informant till year 2009 and witnesses deposed during the trial in year 2013 to 2017, it would be too pedantic to state the exact dates. Hence, in my opinion, non disclosure of such dates would not be that material in the peculiar circumstances of the case as witnesses have correctly mentioned all the incidents of physical and mental cruelty. As well as in respect of the earlier discussion, offences under Section 498A occurs within four corners of the house, hence it is not expected from any neighbour to narrate the ill treatment suffered by informant by her husband and in laws. . And if for the sake of argument we accept that, her neighbours knew about the ill treatment to her by her husband and in laws, but a prudent man can conclude that a neighbor will not come and give evidence against his neighbors for the lady who is not living with his neighbour from years together.
Here goes 212 CrPC down the drain… Ahh this is womenland…
From Para 19,
With due respect to Hon’ble High Court, the above mentioned case laws are not applicable to the case in hand. In present case, informant and her witnesses have specifically deposed about the physical and mental torture as well as unlawful demand of money by accused persons and furthermore her torture on non fulfilling the unlawful demands by accused persons with corroboration. Not a single witness has deposed contrary to prosecution story regarding it. Hence, it constrains me to believe the version of informant and her witnesses
More diarrhea in Para 20,
It is also the defence of accused persons that, she herself has left company of accused no.1. She has filed divorce petition in the Court. The informant also accepted the contention of divorce in her cross examination. But while considering the situation in the Indian culture, when a marriage was performed with zeal and enthusiasm and a bride had left her parental house, it would be difficult to believe that she would leave company of her husband without any reason. Even in todays so called modern society, thereturn of daughter from matrimonial house is treated as a stigma. Considering these general factors, whenever the allegations of cruelty is made, the conduct of the parties, motive intention and other circumstances of the case etc. always needs to be kept in mind because, what amounts of cruelty is nowhere defined. It needs to be waited considering the facts of each and every case differently. However, once the unlawful demands are proved, it materially strengthens the prosecution story. Merely by saying that the informant left company of her husband on her own would not give probability to the defence of husband. He has to offer some plausible explanation on this point. Moreover, when it has emerged on record that even after partying ways with accused no.1, the informant from last 9 years or so is still residing at her parental house. There appears no other reason for her to leave her matrimonial life only because she doesn’t want to cohabit with accused no.1. It is pertinent to note that her elder son was with accused persons and one daughter is with her at the time she left her matrimonial house. Having regard to the Indian culture again a mother cannot leave her son without any strong reason. Only filing petition for divorce in the court will not mean that she was not ill treated by accused persons. Therefore, in my view, additional onus lies on the shoulder of the husband who is accountable to certain extent when his wife leaves his company by contending alleged ill-treatment.
From Para 25, vomiting about 406 IPC (No entrustment, No list of jewelry, To whom, When)
It is pertinent to note that there is no bar of filing criminal case for embezzlement of her jewelery. It is the admitted position of law that the jewelery and ornaments wore by bride at the time if her marriage are her Stridhana. It is nowhere come on record that accused no.1 had returned the jewelery to informant during the pendency of this case. Hence, I came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved section 406 of Indian Penal Code, which accused no.1 cannot rebute.
And some liberal diarrhea gyan delivery from Para 30,
The incidents of cruelty to wives is increasing day by day all over the country. The greed of her husband and relatives is unending and due to this many women has to suffer a lot, many times the greed of her husband and in laws is satisfied at the cost of her life. It is necessary to eradicate such tendency of unlawful demand of money and cruelty to a married woman. Hence, deterrence is must to curb such tendency of society. Therefore, I am not inclined to extend the provision of Probation of Offenders Act, 1884 to him.
You can read the rest of junk below.
Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019
A clear attempt to link circumstances to a pre-judged conclusion by Hon’ble CJ of India himself. At best, this is just an attempt to let go off one of the many grounds husband’s can take in their Discharge and Quash petitions, going against such landmark precedents.
If this assumption is allowed to continue, ablanaris will claim, her hubby dear comes in her dreams and molests, threatens, harasses, violates her & thereby it is a continuing offence as per Black&White Dictionary and attracts 179 CrPC squarely, and consequently your’s truly will wag their tails (heads may be) to it too.
One Gem from this Judgment:
Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony.
Alright. Little bit of difficulty in travel involved. We will use 20 other grounds, Mr. CJI. We also have clubbing of cases judgment and many more judgments on our side.
Frankly speaking, one has to see the caveat laid by Supreme Court in this judgment. Only when the Prosecution can establish that there was threat to the life and/or limb of the knife due to which the false case if institute out side the Jurisdiction, where the alleged offence has happened as mentioned in the Complaint, this judgment can be gainfully invoked.
The Key element is this “compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents“. As long as the Prosecution documents do not prima facie exhibit the above criteria, the ground of Territorial Jurisdiction is still a valid ground to see Discharge or Quash from a false case.
Go here.
My Note:
This is a bad judgment because, we all know the complainant may invoke Zero FIR at her place of residence/parental/shelter home which may be transferred to the location where there is actual territorial jurisdiction to the alleged offence. Or the parents or relative or any good Samaritan can file a report under sec 154(1) to a nearby police station, and again that PS has to register a Zero FIR. Moreover, the complaint’s case is fought by the State via Public Prosecutor and the Chief examination is done via affidavit these days and even that may be one of the instances when the complaint has to appear before Court. Due to technological advances which are expedited by COVID-19 pandemic, even the oath taken at such instance can be made via Video conference. Even the Cross can be conducted via Video conference.
Then what was the need to muddle the sacred principle of territorial jurisdiction enshrined under CHAPTER XIII provisions of Cr.P.C.?
Citations: [2019 SCC 5 384], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 493], [2019 AIR SC 1790], [2019 KLJ 2 601]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78252061/
https://www.legitquest.com/case/rupali-devi-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh/11C400
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cb00bc54a9326247ab05a22
Vijayanand Dattaram Naik And 5 Ors. Vs Vishranti Vijayanand Naik on 13 February, 2019
Relying on landmark judgment here, the magistrate in this case has confirmed the proposal of husband to pay maintenance only for six months, on his own will, even though there is no DV established.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c75ea7eb338d11c8d0c1bb8
https://www.legitquest.com/case/vjayanand-dattaram-naik-v-vishranti-vijayanand-naik/1E16DE
