This is the appeal made by the Pakistan terrorist Kasab which was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Citations :
Other Sources :
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 June, 2014
A peculiar case where the knife filed DV Case on in-laws alone, excluding her husband. The brother-in-law of the knife filed a complaint to police that knife has been filing false cases and police filed a case under IPC 182 after permission from SSP. Knife moved High Court for quash of this case and it was dismissed for lack of merits. Now Supreme Court has set aside this order of High Court and allowed the knife’s petition for quash.
From Para 14,
The complaint, if made, by any woman alleging offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 committed by any member of the family, the matter is to be looked upon seriously. The Police without proper verification and investigation cannot submit a report that no case is made out. The Investigating Agency is required to make proper enquiry not only from the members of the family but also from neighbours, friends and others. After such enquiry, the Investigating Agency may form a definite opinion and file report but it is for the Court to decide finally whether to take cognizance for any offence under any of the provisions of the Act.
This is where the judge takes a tangential swipe at a DV case to 498A case. Quite peculiar indeed.
Citations : [2015 ALD CRL SC 1 518], [2014 SCC 13 25], [2014 SCC CRI 5 517], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 495], [2014 AIR SC 2966], [2014 AIC 140 58], [2014 CRI LJ 4069], [2014 AIOL 394], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 3 426], [2014 CRLJ SC 4069], [2014 JLJR SC 3 263], [2014 JT 8 574], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 175], [2014 SCALE 8 226], [2014 AIR SC 4417], [2014 ALT CRI 3 314], [2014 SCJ 8 179], [2014 AIR SCW 4417]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181157487/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af4ce4b0149711416147
https://advocatespedia.com/Santosh_Bakshi_vs_State_Of_Punjab_And_Ors_on_30_June,_2014
The High Court order that is set aside is given below.
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pawan Balram Mulchandani On 25 September, 2018
In this case adjudicated by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, it was held unequivocally that a murder is an accidental death from the perspective of the policy holder or accidental death insurance policy. Moreover ‘Murder’ was not specifically excepted in the policy.
It has granted Rs.20,00,000/- sum assured with 9% interest per annum from the date of repudiation along with cost of Rs.25,000/-. In addition, reasonable compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- shall also be paid by the insurance company to the nominees of the policy holder/deceased.
CItations :
Other Sources :
B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003
This is the landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, which laid down the law that under CrPC 482, High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable case such as 498A and 406 IPC.
From Para 13-15,
13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V Rao v. L.H.V Prasad 2000 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the code.
Citations : [2003 ACR SC 2 1305], [2003 AIR SC 1386], [2003 ALD CRI 1 842], [2003 ALR 51 222], [2003 ALT CRI 2 60], [2003 ALT SC 5 4], [2003 CALLT SC 3 32], [2003 CGLJ 2 35], [2003 CTC 3 54], [2003 DMC SC 1 524], [2003 GLH 2 351], [2003 JKJ SC 2 439], [2003 JT SC 3 277], [2003 KLT SC 2 1062], [2003 OLR 2 101], [2003 RCR CRIMINAL 2 888], [2003 SCALE 3 214], [2003 SCC 4 675], [2003 SCR 2 1104], [2003 UC 2 827], [2003 UJ 2 953], [2003 SCC CRI 848], [2003 CRI LJ 2028]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/469138/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adc9e4b0149711412459
Another landmark judgment which cites this judgment is here.
Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors Vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr on 15 March, 2013
A similar judgment to this one here from Apex Court.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012
The legal contention to be decided authoritatively in this case in front of Apex Court is that “it should not be understood to have meant that Judges can quash any kind of criminal case merely because there has been a compromise between the parties. After all, a crime is an offence against society, and not merely against a private individual”.
This was referred from a 2-judge bench of Apex Court to decide the issue authoritatively and dissolve the ambiguity, if any.
Some or all of the following tests may be relevant to decide whether to quash or not to quash the criminal proceedings in a given case;
(a) the nature and gravity of case;
(b) does the dispute reflect overwhelming and predominantly civil flavour;
(c) would the quashing involve settlement of entire or almost the entire dispute;
(d) the compromise/settlement between parties and/or other facts and the circumstances render possibility of conviction remote and bleak;
(e) not to quash would cause extreme injustice and would not serve ends of justice and
(f) not to quash would result in abuse of process of court.
The key judgment cited in this judgment is here.
Citations: [2012 SCALE 9 257], [2012 SLT 7 171], [2012 CRLJ SC 4934], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 543], [2012 SCC 10 303], [2012 AIR SC 5333], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 4 428], [2013 SCC CRI 1 160], [2012 CRIMES SC 4 155], [2012 AIOL 413], [2012 SCC CIV 4 1188], [2012 SCC L&S 2 988], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 769], [2012 KLJ 4 141], [2012 KERLT 4 108], [2012 GUJ LH 3 394], [2012 AIR SC SUPP 838], [2013 RLW SC 4 3573], [2013 BLJ 2 289], [2012 SCR 8 753], [2012 KARLJ 5 476], [2012 WLN 4 71], [2012 CGLRW 3 98], [2012 JT SC 9 426], [2012 AIR SCW 5333]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69949024/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af16e4b014971141590c
https://indianlawportal.co.in/gian-singh-v-state-of-punjab/
Chinta Lakshmikanth Vs Chintha Jayashree on 18 July, 2014
Interim Stay is granted on DVC Proceedings in this case by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Highlight of the case: 19 Respondents are arrayed as accused!!!
Here is the status of this case, as on the date of this posting.
Rajeev Singhal & Anr Vs MCD (East Delhi Municipal Corporation) & Anr On 27 September, 2018
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the parents of a 14 year old boy who got accidentally electrocuted in a Delhi park were paid compensation of Rs.27,38,607.81 to which they would also be entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum to be calculated from the date of the presentation of the writ petition till actual payment is made.
Some news around this case/incident here and here.
Citations :
Other Sources :
M.P. Tej Babu Vs The State Of Telangana and 2 others on 4 March, 2016
This is a writ petition filed with Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in which this judgment is issued under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The self-acquired property of son was ordered to be transferred to his mother by Tribunal. But then in this judgment, Hon’ble High Court held that the fact remains that no transfer of property in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.3, and that too after commencement of the Act, has taken place. As such, no return of transfer of property is made out.
