This is the earlier false 498A case that was quashed by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Subsequent DVC is available here.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015
This is a quash judgment from Hon’ble High of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the DVC on relatives of husband are quashed on grounds that there is ‘no shared household’ and ‘no domestic relationship’ conditions.
5. ( i) Coming back to the facts of the case, all the petitioners are residents of Prakasam District whereas the respondent is a resident of Hyderabad. There is nothing on record to show that the present petitioners had any domestic relationship and lived together with the 2nd respondent in a shared household at any point of time. Further after the proceedings in Crime No.204 of 2010 were quashed by this Court, by orders dated 04.10.2012, the present DV case is filed by the 2nd respondent.
6 . Viewed thus, this Court finds that the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners herein in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196776515/
Citation:
Earlier 498a case that was quashed is available here.
The index page is here.
Mukesh & Anr Vs State For Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 5 May, 2017
These are the appeals filed by the accused in Nirbhaya (Jyoti Singh) gang rape case dismissed by Apex Court.
Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others on 13 September, 2013
Landmark judgment of Apex Court giving guidelines or principles to adhere to while condoning delay in appeals.
Dr. Harbans Singh Sodhi Vs State of Punjab and others on 14 May, 2018
In this dismissal order from High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it was held that, it is premature to file a compensation claim while the trial is in pendency.
Having heard learned counsel at length and having perused the case paper book we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant appeal.
Concededly trial is still pending. Even otherwise registration of an FIR is not a conclusive indicator as regards complicity of an accused of the offences cited in the FIR. Appellant has not been charged for offence under Section 376 IPC. We also find that in the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for grant of compensation, complainant had not even been arrayed as a respondent.
We are in agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge declining grant of compensation during pendency of the trial.
Appeal is dismissed.
Suffice it to observe that it would be open for the appellant to raise a claim for compensation at the appropriate stage under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the competent Court.
Kodungallur Film Society vs Union Of India on 1 October, 2018
Hon’ble Supreme Court issued directions to the States/Union of India to strictly implement the decision rendered by this Court in here, concerning the large-scale destruction of properties in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals etc. and levy fine and grant compensation to the victims of such mob-violence.
Indiankanoon.org version is available below.
Destruction of Public and Private Properties Vs State of A.P. and Ors on 16 April 2009
Dr Arijit Pasayat has delivered this wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
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
Jagruti Shashikant Soni Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2018
Weird case disposed off by High Court of Gujarat !!!
Sections included in the FIR by police are: Sections 498-A, 509, 342, 504, 506, 427, 34 etc. of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
From Para 5 and 5.1,
At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society.
Learned advocate for the applicants states that matter is settled between the parties.
Despite it having POCSO applied, What does the below infer? It’s a screaming fake case, wherein the provisions of a penal act, were grossly and brazenly, misused by none other that the knife.
Swapnil Tripathi Vs Supreme Court of India on 26 September, 2018
This is the landmark judgment from Apex Court, for live streaming of the court proceedings of the Supreme Court in a phased manner and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 will have to be suitably amended to provide for the regulatory framework.
