Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

Posted on September 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) held that the husband may initiate perjury proceedings against the knife, if he desires so.

From Para 7,

A perusal at the complaint would indicate that the complainant laid emphasis upon infections of the husband on his genital areas which resembled as STD. Therefore, the husband is guilty of mental harassment dishonestly concealing his mental condition and breaching the trust of the wife. Minute details of certain allegations are made which are found in the complaint. The crux of the complaint was STD on him, making her leave her job after marriage and therefore, she would be dependent upon him. There is not a single sentence about the petitioner demanding dowry and indulging in cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry. All the harassments that the complainant narrates are minor skirmishes between the husband and the wife.
A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would also not indicate any demand of dowry or cruelty on the part of the husband. Prior to filing of the charge sheet by the Police, statements were recorded of the family members of the complainant.
The mother herself in her statement speaks that at the time of discussions about the marriage, the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner had clearly indicated that they do not want any dowry and they are not demanding anything. The same goes with the statements of others.
What is given to the complainant, according to the complainant’s tradition, is 614 grams of silver and 160 grams of gold, not as demand but as a tradition of her family which at best be said to be ‘Stridhana’. Such statements galore. If the statements recorded of the mother and the brother of the complainant, the complaint, the charge sheet and summary of the charge sheet are red in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that, no demand for dowry was made and no cruelty that would become ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC would get attracted in the case at hand.
Section 498A has two circumstances, which can draw an accused into its web. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty which is likely to drive the woman to suicide or the harassment should be such that they would coerce the woman for meeting any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, and on failure to fulfill the demand, indulge in cruelty. If the contents of the complaint, summary of the charge and the statements are considered on the bedrock of necessary ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC, the allegation of the offence would tumble down like a pack of cards, as, no where it is indicative, of the fact that there is dowry harassment and cruelty by the husband or the members of the family of the petitioner.

From Para 8,

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that every time the petitioner was accused of suffering from STD. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is clearly indicated by the wife that the petitioner is suffering from HPV infection as he has some rashes on his buttock. The petitioner gets himself tested at the Victoria Hospital and several hospitals.
The diagnostic centre at Columbus, USA observes that history and physical examination of the petitioner was done. He has no physical signs and no history of concern for HPV or any other infection in the body. Therefore, the bogey that is projected by the complainant/wife that the husband has some physical problem appears to be a white lie.

From Para 9,

9. The other bogey projected by the wife is that the petitioner has closed all channels of communications and had never shown any interest in getting the complainant to the USA, this is completely belied by the documents appended to the petition itself, as not one but four appointments were taken by the petitioner for VISA purposes of the wife. The first appointment after the petitioner left to the USA was on 13-10-2020. There are four appointments, confirmation acknowledgments of which are produced by the petitioner as annexures to the petition. They are dated 13-10-2020, 02-03-2021, 07-05-2021 and 24-05-2021;
It is on the 5th appointment, the complainant goes before the visa office and Visa is granted to the complainant, which is also appended as document to the petition. These are documents which speak for themselves. A mail communication on 05-12-2021 is quoted hereinabove. The complainant seeks confirmation regarding her travel to USA. Therefore, it is clearly a bogey projected by the complainant that the petitioner was not interested in getting her to the USA and had blocked all channels; but the documents speak otherwise. The attitude of the complainant also speaks for itself.
Therefore, it is not a case where there is an iota of ingredient against the petitioner/husband for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It is misuse and abuse of criminal justice system by the complainant right from the word go.

Para 10,

10. This Court has completely considered the complaint, summary of the charge sheet, the statements recorded and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. All this exercise is undertaken only to arrive at a conclusion as to any of the ingredients of the offences are met or otherwise. The unmistakable conclusion is that, the complainant in gross misuse and abuse of law has set the criminal law into motion. Such frivolous cases registered by the wife have taken enormous judicial time, be it before the concerned Court or before this Court, and has led to enormous civil unrest, destruction of harmony and happiness in the society. It may not be that these would be the facts in every given case. The Court is only concerned about frivolous and vexatious litigations clogging the criminal justice delivery system, where genuine cases lie in cold storage. If the facts narrated hereinabove are noticed and as observed, the complainant has, in gross misuse and abuse of the process of the law, has set the criminal law into motion. Therefore, it becomes a fit case where the husband must be given liberty to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution or initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the IPC. Liberty is thus reserved to the husband, for such action to be initiated in accordance with law, if he so desires.

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

List of Quash judgments is here and List of Perjury judgments is here.

Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 19 Jul 2024

Posted on September 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) held that along with notice under 41A CrPC (Section 35 BNSS), a copy of the FIR must be sent along.

From Para 9,

This notice does have clarity as to why the petitioner is being summoned. The matter could be disposed of recording the fact that the second notice does contain the crime number, as the issue may seem to be very simple. In the considered view of the Court, it is not, as Section 41 of the Cr.P.C., deals with arrest of persons. Any notice so issued under Section 41-A if not complied with, the Station House Officer is entitled to arrest the noticee. Therefore, the noticee must be aware of why he is being summoned to the Police Station, as summoning to the Police Station is not summoning a person to a happy place. A citizen must know as to why he is being summoned. The information to the citizen cannot be half baked; it must be in full. The notice must contain the crime number and the purpose for which he is being summoned. While it can be transmitted electronically, no fault can be found with that, but it should mention crime number. The duty of the Station House Officer would not stop at mentioning crime number, but he should also attach to the communication, a copy of the FIR, so registered against the noticee, as power is available to summon the accused or any person in connection with a crime. Therefore, the noticee, without knowing the crime number and without getting a copy of the FIR, cannot be asked to appear before an officer of the police station on receipt of notice under Section 41-A.

From Para 10,

Sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 35 of the BNSS assume significance. Section 35(4) permits issuance of a notice to any person and the noticee shall be bound to comply with the terms of the notice. Section 35(6) commands that if a person fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the Police Officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by the competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. Therefore, the rigour is little stronger. Stronger the rigour, the noticee is required to know all that he has to reply, prior to his appearance before the Police. It, thus, becomes mandatory for a notice to be issued under Section 35 of the BNSS to mention the crime number, the offence alleged in the crime so registered and necessarily append to it a copy of the FIR so registered, as any person who receives the notice must be aware for what he is being summoned to the Police Station.

From Para 13,

13. It is made clear that till the guidelines/check list is so notified by the State, if any person is necessary to be summoned, the drill that shall be followed are:-
(a) The notice under Section 35 of the BNSS shall mention the crime number and the offence alleged in the crime number. This can be communicated to the noticee either through the conventional method or through electronic mode.
(b) The communication shall attach copy of the FIR so registered, as the FIR would contain the gist of the complaint.
(c) In the event notice does not contain the crime number, the offence alleged or appending of the FIR, subject to just exceptions, the noticee is not obliged to appear before the officer who has directed him to appear and no coercive action can be taken for non-appearance.
(d) It is also necessary for the Police Department to bring about robust system for the FIR being uploaded immediately on their registration and make it search friendly.

Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka on 19 Jul 2024

Other remedies to police atrocities are here.

Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Anr Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 28 Aug 2024

Posted on September 3, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. The question of law involved in these two appeals as to whether quashing of the FIR should have been refused for no other reason than that the investigating officer has filed the charge-sheet is no longer res integra. Decisions of this Court to such effect are legion. We may profitably refer to the decisions of this Court in Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo3, Anand Kumar Mohatta vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Home Department4 and Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh5.
8. On the authority of the aforesaid decisions, law seems to be well-settled that the High Court under Section 482, Cr. PC. retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet under Section 173(2) thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is reached, inter alia, that either the FIR and the charge-sheet read together, even accepted as true and correct without rebuttal, does not disclose commission of any offence or that continuation of proceedings arising out of such an FIR would in fact be an abuse of the process of law as well as of the Court given the peculiar circumstances of each particular case.

Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Anr Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 28 Aug 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

BSA Sec 63 – Admissibility of electronic records

Posted on September 1, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

63. Admissibility of electronic records.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Adhiniyam, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory which is produced by a computer or any communication device or otherwise stored, recorded or copied in any electronic form (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence or any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:—
(a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer or communication device during the period over which the computer or Communication device was used regularly to create, store or process information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer or communication device;
(b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer or Communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer or communication device was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer or Communication device in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of creating, storing or processing information for the purposes of any activity regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by means of one or more computers or communication device, whether—
(a) in standalone mode; or
(b) on a computer system; or
(c) on a computer network; or
(d) on a computer resource enabling information creation or providing information processing and storage; or
(e) through an intermediary,
all the computers or communication devices used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer or communication device; and references in this section to a computer or communication device shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceeding where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things shall be submitted along with the electronic record at each instance where it is being submitted for admission, namely:—
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer or a communication device referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3);
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate,
and purporting to be signed by a person in charge of the computer or communication device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) and an expert shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it in the certificate specified in the Schedule.
(5) For the purposes of this section,—
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer or communication device if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;
(b) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer or communication device whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment or by other electronic means as referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (3).

Nikhil Wadhawan Vs Priti Wadhawan on 05 Feb 2024

Posted on August 30, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 37 and 38,

37. From the evidence of the parties, it is evident that there was an unwarranted interference of the parents and the family members of the respondent in the matrimonial life of the appellant, as has been asserted by him. Such parental interference reached an extent of causing immense harassment to the appellant, who was even made to face multiple complaints before the different agencies. The parties are residing separately since 2001 i.e. for about 13 years, during which the appellant has been deprived of his conjugal relationship for no fault of his. It needs no reiteration that the bedrock of any matrimonial relationship is cohabitation and conjugal relationships. For a spouse to be deprived of his wife’s company proves that the marriage cannot survive, and such deprivation of conjugal relationships is an act of extreme cruelty. Such long separation with no effort by the wife to resume matrimonial relationship, is an act of cruelty as is held in the case of Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511.
38. We thus, conclude that the evidence on record proved that there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations, Police reports and criminal trial can only be termed as mental cruelty. The marital discord between the parties has pinnacled to complete loss of faith, trust, understanding, love and affection between the parties. This dead relationship has become infested with acrimony, irreconcilable differences and protracted litigations; any insistence to continue this relationship would only be perpetuating further cruelty upon both the parties.

Nikhil Wadhawan Vs Priti Wadhawan on 05 Feb 2024

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Roshan Lal Tickoo Vs Predimant Krishan Tickoo on 02 Aug 2024

Posted on August 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladhak High Court at Srinagar held as follows,

From Pars 9-10,

9. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that before initiating an enquiry into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C, the Court has to frame an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so, whereafter the Court has to record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing. The same has to be sent to the Magistrate of 1st Class having the jurisdiction.
10. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C makes a reference to the offences punishable under Section 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 2011 and 228 of IPC when such offences are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court. The aforesaid offences fall under Chapter (XI) of the Indian Penal Code which relate to false evidence and offences against public justice. Thus, it is important for a Court to frame an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to hold an enquiry with regard to commission of aforesaid offences if the same appear to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in a Court.

From Para 13,

13. From the analysis of the legal position on the subject, it is clear that preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C can be directed only if in the opinion of the Court, it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so when it appears that the offence of perjury in relation to court proceedings has been committed. Thus, two conditions are necessary for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C, first that the offence of perjury in relation to court proceedings should appear to have been committed and secondly, in the opinion of the court it should be expedient in the interests of justice to hold such preliminary enquiry.

From Paras 14-15,

14. Coming to the present case, the respondents/applicants have alleged that the petitioner/non-applicant has made false statements in his petition which relate to estimated losses as per the audit conducted on account of unauthorized sale of 18 tanker lorries, decline in profits of the partnership firm, non-deposit of sale amount of the vehicles in the account of the partnership firm, respondent having entered into partnership without consent of the petitioner and sale of plot of land by respondent/applicant owned by the partnership firm at Channi Himmat, Jammu, unilaterally. The veracity of all these allegations is a matter in issue before the Arbitral Tribunal. It is, therefore, yet to be determined as to whether the aforesaid allegations made by the petitioner in his petition under Section 9 of the Act are false.
15. It is not a case where the petitioner is stated to have made any contradictory statements in his pleadings but it is a case where he has made certain allegations, the veracity of which is yet to be determined. Had it been a case of contradictory stands having been taken by the petitioner in his pleadings, perhaps this Court would have been justified in holding a preliminary enquiry in terms of Section 340 of Cr. P. C at this stage itself but because the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition, which according to the respondent/applicant are false, is yet to be determined and there is no material on record to suggest that the same are, prima facie, false, this Court feels that the prayer of the respondents/applicants for initiating preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C cannot be considered at this stage. The same has to await the determination of the aforesaid issues by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Roshan Lal Tickoo Vs Predimant Krishan Tickoo on 02 Aug 2024

Index of perjury judgments is here.

James Kunjwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr on 13 Aug 2024

Posted on August 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Apex Court passed guidelines to follow, When perjury proceedings can be initiated.

From Paras 16-20,

16. What we may conclude from a perusal of the above-noticed judicial pronouncements is that:-
(i) The Court should be of the prima facie opinion that there exists sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against the person who has allegedly made a false statement(s);
(ii) Such proceedings should be initiated when doing the same is “expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent” and not merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be innocent/immaterial;
(iii) There should be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”;
(iv) The Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere suspicion;
(v) Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the Court.
17. The statement made by the appellant, that has been deemed to be befitting the offence of giving false evidence before the Court, which is known commonly as perjury, was more in the nature of denial of the statements made in the affidavits of the complainant herein.
18. We are of the view that, in the present facts, a denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold, as described in the judgments above, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement made by the appellant in the affidavit. As has already been observed, mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence under the Section. It cannot be disputed that the statements made in the affidavit were only to state his version of events and/or deny the version put forth by the complainant.
19. We are also of the firm opinion that such statements do not make it expedient in the interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional circumstances in which such Sections may be invoked. Given that these proceedings would constitute an offence, independent of the one for which the appellant is already facing trial, it cannot be unequivocally held that there was deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance.
20. We find that at least three of the possible scenarios, as discussed supra, in which a court would be justified in invoking these powers on the face of it appear to be unmet, prosecution, therefore, would be unjust. We say so for the reason that the respondent in her counter affidavit filed before this Court makes no particular allegation nor does she provide any of the material that was allegedly placed before the competent prosecuting authorities or the Court. She only alleges untruth on the part of the appellant 8/12/2024 stating that the Court was correct in initiating proceedings against him for making the false statement. She further makes certain statements that fall outside the scope of the present adjudication and pertain to the trial of the main offence pending before the court of competent jurisdiction.

James Kunjwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr on 13 Aug 2024

Citations: [2024 INSC 601], [2024 Latest Caselaw 508 SC]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84159018/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/66beef2337d7e5445370dff1

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/james-kunjwal-versus-state-of-uttarakhand

https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s-193-ipc-when-can-perjury-proceedings-be-initiated-against-a-litigant-supreme-court-explains-266668

https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-caselaw/2024/august/2024-latest-caselaw-508-sc/

https://www.lawtext.in/judgement.php?bid=442

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/james-kunjwal-v-state-of-uttarakhand-2024-insc-601-mere-denial-of-averments-in-pleadings-not-perjury-no-malafide-intention-1547820

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=17806

https://lawtrend.in/mere-denial-in-affidavit-doesnt-constitute-offence-under-section-193-ipc-supreme-court-quashed-perjury-charges/

Index of perjury judgments is here.

Sundari Gautam Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 09 Aug 2024

Posted on August 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held that, a woman can also be an accused under POCSO Act, specifically for the offence of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault‟.

From Paras 25-27,

25. In the opinion of this court, a comparison of the offence defined in section 375 of the IPC (on the one hand) and in sections 3 and 5 of the POSCO Act (on the other) shows that the offences so defined are different. Though the acts that form the gravamen of the offence in section 375 of the IPC are the same as those in sections 3 and 5 of the POCSO Act, the opening line of section 375 specifically refers to a “man” whereas the opening line of section 3 refers to a “person”. The scope and meaning of the word “man” appearing in section 375 of the IPC is not under consideration of this court in the present proceedings. But there is no reason why the word “person” appearing section 3 of the POCSO Act should be read as referring only to a “male‟. It is accordingly held that the acts mentioned sections 3 and 5 of the POCSO Act are an offence regardless of the gender of the offender provided the acts are committed upon a child.
26. On a conjoint reading of the foregoing provisions of the POCSO Act, it is accordingly held that the word „he‟ appearing in section 3 of the POCSCO Act cannot be given a restrictive meaning, to say that it refers only to a „male‟; but must be given its intended meaning, namely that it includes within its ambit any offender irrespective of their gender.
27. As a sequitur to the above, on a prima-facie consideration of the material placed on record along with the chargesheet, in the opinion of this court, the offence of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault‟ is made-out against the petitioner, even though she is a woman; and the petitioner is therefore required to be put to trial for the offences as charged.

Sundari Gautam Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 09 Aug 2024

Samad Habib Mithani and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 25 Jul 2024

Posted on August 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division (women!) bench of Bombay High Court at Bombay quashed a fake case on in-laws.

From Para 10,

10…
Hence, from the above mentioned statements of the relatives of the Respondent No.2, it is obvious that there are no serious allegations as such against the present Applicants. These are merely omnibus allegations which are not supported by any evidence, as regards the ill-treatment and cruelty meted to the Respondent No.2. The allegations in the complaint are general and vague without specific examples of cruelty and harassment. The record and the statements do not support the allegations made against the present Applicants. The complaint against the present Applicants is not supported by any documents, letter, e-mails, message to support the allegation of cruelty and harassment.

From Para 16,

16. In our opinion, the case of the present Applicants would fall under the category (ii) from the above referred three categories, where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint taken to its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged. Merely, remarks in the complaint about the supporting the accused No.1 while narrating some of the incidents would not perse amount to committing the offences which they have been alleged of. It would be unfair to continue the prosecution against the present Applicants for the conduct of the accused No.1, in which they have been unfortunately dragged. From the various incidents which have been narrated by the Respondent No.2 as well as the witnesses, who are her near relatives, there does not appear to be complicity of the present Applicants. The continuation of present proceedings against the Applicants would cause injustice and hardship to the Applicants. Even otherwise, the material collected during the investigation does not support the charges levelled against the present Applicants. The malafide proceedings initiated against the present Applicants needs to be curbed at this stage itself, in order to prevent abuse or process of law and miscarriage of justice, since it is obvious that the allegations are not supported by any other cogent material and have been made with a view to wreak vengeance against the present Applicants.

Samad Habib Mithani and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 25 Jul 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Harsh Bhuwalka and Ors Vs Sanjay Kumar Bajoria on 05 Aug 2024

Posted on August 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court passed this Practice directions as follows,

From Paras 7-9,

7. It is clear on the face of the records and it is also not disputed by Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, in his usual fairness, that the petitioners made an absolutely incorrect, nay false, statement in paragraph 3 of I.A. No.158707 of 2024 that the High Court had not furnished the certified copy of the impugned order despite they having applied for the same.
8. We would have been entirely justified in directing the Registry to take suitable steps for initiation of proceedings before the criminal court against the petitioners but having regard to the fervent prayer made by Mr. Bhatnagar that the petitioners may not entirely be at fault, we refrain from so directing.
9. However, having regard to the skullduggery that was sought to be adopted, we see no reason to condone the grave lapse on the part of the petitioners and hear them on the merits of the special leave petition. The special leave petition, along with I.A. No.158707 of 2024, I.A. No.158709 of
2024 and I.A. No. 169588 of 2024, stands dismissed.

From Paras 16-18,

16. We are pained to note that despite there being specific provisions in the 2013 Rules requiring a special leave petition to be accompanied by the certified copy of the impugned judgment and order, such provisions are observed more in the breach. Such a situation should not to be allowed to persist; so long the rules exist, there has to be substantial compliance. Even if the certified copy is not available on the date of presentation of a special leave petition, proof of application for such copy has to be adduced for the court to consider the prayer for exemption.
17. With this in view, we propose to issue a practice direction to the following effect:
“If any special leave petition, arising out of civil proceedings as well as criminal proceedings, is accompanied by an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the judgment and/or order under challenge, such application must have, as an annexure, the receipt that has been generated/provided by the concerned Section/Department of the high court as acknowledgment of receipt of an application from the applicant for certified copy of the impugned judgment and/or order and the reason for seeking exemption; further, it must have an averment that the application for certified copy has not lapsed owing to non-filing of requisites or otherwise; also, the application must contain an undertaking of the applicant to place the certified copy of the impugned judgment and/or order on record as soon as possible after the same is furnished to him by the concerned Section/Department of the high court.”
Ordered accordingly.
18. This practice direction has to be observed by all litigants who propose to file special leave petitions both on the civil side as well as on the criminal side with effect from 20th August, 2024.

Harsh Bhuwalka and Ors Vs Sanjay Kumar Bajoria on 05 Aug 2024

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 19 Jul 2024

Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Anr Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 28 Aug 2024

BSA Sec 63 – Admissibility of electronic records

Nikhil Wadhawan Vs Priti Wadhawan on 05 Feb 2024

Roshan Lal Tickoo Vs Predimant Krishan Tickoo on 02 Aug 2024

James Kunjwal Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr on 13 Aug 2024

Sundari Gautam Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 09 Aug 2024

Samad Habib Mithani and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 25 Jul 2024

Harsh Bhuwalka and Ors Vs Sanjay Kumar Bajoria on 05 Aug 2024