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”]
Author: ShadesOfKnife
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.
Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015
In this judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that “the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions” in the petitions contesting the maintainability of 482 CrPC quash in DV Cases.
See Page 5, last para…
Needless to say if any appeal is filed by any of the petitioners herein, they can file for the period beyond one month with application invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the learned Sessions Judge to entertain as it is of bonafide prosecution in this Court instead of proceeding by appeal before the Court of Sessions, within the sweep of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Further, 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.
Citations: [2015 SCC ONLINE HYD 293], [2016 CCC 1 49], [2015 ALD CRI 2 764]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110893807/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e53212e46571b56b1ea70aa
http://document.manupatra.com/ap/2001-2004/ap2015/AP20151408152002271.htm
The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.
Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. on 13 November, 2009
In this well-reasoned judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that in addition to the approach courts should take while considering whether the main Act as well as its amendment are prospective or retrospective in effect.
FACTS:
The petitioners filed a petition on 16.12.2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class against the respondents (her husband and in-laws), under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to grant certain reliefs as mentioned therein, which was taken on file as D.V.C. NO.163 of 2008. The petitioners also filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the same was taken on file as D.V.C. No.10 of 2009.
Criminal Petition No.346 of 2009 is filed to quash all further proceedings in D.V.C. No.163 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, whereas, Criminal Petition No.7978 of 2009 is filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.10 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur district.
ISSUES:
Whether the Quash petition is liable to be dismissed? Whether the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation?
DECISION:
It was held that the intention of the legislation is to provide certain remedies to the victims of domestic violence and also to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society.
Therefore, the acts of violence occurred prior to 25.10.2006 would come within the meaning of ‘domestic violence’ as defined under the Act. For the foregoing reasons, the Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation. It was thus held that there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings and both the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed. The Criminal Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
From para 22,
If a statute does not provide an offender liable to any penalty (conviction or sentence) in favour of the state, it can be said that legislation will be classified as remedial statute. Remedial statutes are known as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented legislations. A remedial statute receives a liberal construction. In case of remedial statutes, doubt is resolved in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted. Whenever a legislation prescribes a duty or penalty for breach of it, it must be understood that the duty is prescribed in the interest of the community or some part of it and the penalties prescribed as a sanction for its purpose. None of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has direct penal consequences.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Key Contributor:
Advocate Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)
Cell:
Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 Jan 2013
Nice judgment from Apex Court in quashing the false DVC on relatives of husband.
Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1077], [2013 ALJ 2 231], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 626], [2013 CRI LJ 1178], [2013 CRIMES SC 1 216], [2013 KHC 1 358], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 410], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 340], [2013 SCC 4 176], [2013 AIR SC 776], [2013 CRLJ 1178], [[2013 CCR 1 452], [2013 SLT 1 545], [2013 SCC CR 2 337], [2013 BCR CRI 1 626], [2013 RAJ 2 318], [2013 RCR CRI 2 340], [2013 AICLR 1 713], [2013 ALLLJ 2 231], [2013 HINDULR 1 192]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415bbc
The index page is here.
Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015
A landmark quash judgment by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which laid down few criteria only under which DVC quash under CrPC 482 is maintainable.
From Para 13,
The next aspect is having regard to the fact that the reliefs provided under Section 18 to 22 are civil reliefs and enquiry under Sec. 12 of D.V. Act is not a trial of a criminal case, whether the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings that they were unnecessarily roped in and thereby continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court etc., pleas. In my considered view, having regard to the facts that the scheme of the Act which provide civil reliefs and the Magistrate can lay his own procedure by not taking coercive steps in general course and the enquiry being not the trial of a criminal offence, the respondents cannot rush with 482 Cr.P.C petitions seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in. They can establish their non involvement in the matter and non-answerability to the reliefs claimed by participating in the enquiry. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.
From Para 14,
14) To sum up the findings:
i) Since the remedies under D.V Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass exparte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that he can insist the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.
Citations: 2015 ALD CRL AP 2 470
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71870497/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8dce4b01497111438bd
This decision (with respect to shared householding requirement in DV cases) seems to be overruled by Supreme Court here. This judgment was not considered in the SC judgment.
Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.
