Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 9 December, 2015

Posted on September 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held in this Criminal Revision that the parents-in-law of the knife cannot be forced to undergo criminal trial as no specific allegations supported by evidence is available on record.

See the cunning nature of this knife. Got 15 lakhs as settlement amount even then tried to implicate in-laws!!

From Para 9,

The charge sheet which was filed by the police clearly discloses that the husband of the complainant was residing in Nigeria and he could not be traced. The charge sheet also took note of the fact that during the course of investigation, when the petitioners had prayed for bail, the dispute was settled between them and the complainant on deposit of Rs.15 lakhs by the order of the High Court. The complainant had accepted such amount towards settlement of her matrimonial disputes. Initially an amount of Rs.15 lakhs was deposited with the Registrar General of Delhi High Court but on the request of the complainant, the same was released in her favour. The complainant who is present in person admits of her having received the aforesaid amount.

From Para 28, 29,

The FIR clearly makes out a case of the husband of the complainant not treating her well. The complainant went to Nigeria, only to find that her husband was in the habit of drinking alcohol and watching pornographic films. The house in which the complainant was kept was shared by other relatives of the husband. There is no mention of the petitioners having gone to Nigeria to stay with their son or with the complainant. The averments made in the FIR further disclose that the tall claims of the family of the petitioners was found to be false during the period when the complainant had the opportunity to stay in the matrimonial family. Though it is stated that she was insinuated and taunted for bringing less dowry and was made to do household work as if she was a maid servant of the house, but no specific instance of such acts of cruelty have been listed by the complainant. A vague and general allegation has been raised that she was not treated well in her matrimonial home when she came back from Nigeria. The FIR also refers to the assessment of the complainant that the petitioners did not want her to come back to India.
Apart from this, admittedly, the complainant accepted Rs.15 lakhs towards settlement of her matrimonial dues. The husband of the complainant who is the son of the petitioners is untraceable.
A protracted investigation in the matter also did not yield any definitive finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners. The petitioners were not sent up for trial.

Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 9 December, 2015

Appanna @ Laxmaiah Vs The State of Karnataka on 12 September 2012

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that not every cruelty attracts IPC 498A especially in the absence of a harassment/demand for same.

From Para 14,

Assuming for the purpose of argument that the evidence on record as referred to by the learned Sessions Judge indicated that the appellant was beating the deceased under intoxication of liquor, there is no indication that such beating was with a view to force the deceased either to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury to her life, limb or health. It is not the say of any of the witnesses that the deceased at any point of time attempted to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself. Therefore, the torture of physical beating by the appellant as spoken to by the witnesses cannot be treated as ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A to find him guilty for the said charge.

Read the Para 16 too. It nails the prosecution case.

Appanna @ Laxmaiah Vs The State of Karnataka on 12 September, 2012

The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.

Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this revision filed by knife against the discharge of husband’s relatives, District Court of Delhi, held that not every cruelty attracts IPC 498A especially in the absence of a harassment/demand for same.

From Para 5,

Perusal of the file reveals that case was registered on the complaint given by the petitioner to the Joint Commissioner of Police. In this complaint it is no where mentioned that any of the respondents no. 2 to 6 had made any specific demand and the allegations are against her husband.
….
Perusal of the file further reveals that supplementary statements of petitioner were recorded on 29.03.2006 & 02.05.2004. In the complaint given to the Joint Commissioner of Police, there are no allegation of harassment and dowry demand against any of the respondents no. 2 to 6. There are allegation against respondent nos. 5 & 6 that they had thrown the gifts and they refused to accept them as the same were not as per their choice. There are allegation against the respondents no. 3 & 4 that they started fighting with the petitioner. They also stated to the petitioner that they are foreign returns and taunted the petitioner and further they demanded for change of gifts. I am of the view that these allegations cannot be construed as demand in view of Section 498A IPC. The Ld. MM has rightly came to conclusion that all the allegations are general in nature. The counsel for the petitioner is not able to make out any allegation of harassment or dowry demand against the respondents no. 2 to 6.

Para 6 further destroys the prosecution case,

It is admitted fact that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 20.06.2002 and complaint was filed on 11.11.2003. It is also admitted fact that the marriage between respondents no. 3 & 4 was solemnized in the year 1999 and marriage between respondents no. 5 & 6 were solemnized in the year 2000. It isalso admitted fact that respondents no. 3 to 6 are not residing in the matrimonial house of the petitioner and they are residing separately after the marriage of thepetitioner. It is true that no date, time and place has been given by the complainant when any demand was raised by the respondents no. 2 to 6.

From Para 8,

But, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under Section 498A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.

Sudha Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 January, 2016

The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that, it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A.

From Para 3,

After going through her evidence it does not appear that she has conclusively established that the beating and harassment was with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal demands of the non-applicants. The trial Court has discussed this aspect at some length and has recorded a finding that offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, is not established. I do not see any reason to interfere with the same in my revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the complainant, particularly when the State has not challenged the impugned order.

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April, 1989

Binod Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2016

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Jharkhand had set aside the CrPC 239 dismissal and remitted back the case to lower court to to pass a fresh order in accordance with law on the application filed by the petitioner.

Highlights

It has further been alleged that the previous husband of the informant had died in Kashmir and she had been paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which amount the petitioner wanted. It has also beenalleged that the informant had given Hero Honda motorcycle, Rs. 2.5 lacks in cash and money for construction of the boundary wall.

In addition to the weird instant complaint filed in 2006 as Kotwali (S.N.) P. S. Case No. 336 of 2006, which attracted IPC 498A, the knife had earlier on the same set of facts, another case was instituted by the informant in 2004 as Kotwali (S.N.) P. S. Case No. 209 of 2004.

It is the exact same PS two complaints were filed, on same set of facts and the first time it was registered as IPC 498A case, and the second time it attracted IPC 498A as well as IPC 494!! When the order taking cognizance dated 27.06.2007 was challenged by the petitioner, the Court is its infinite wisdom, has quashed only IPC 498A in the second case, as it justified the IPC 498A was already there in the first case!!!
Wah bhai wah!!!

Binod Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2016

Rabindra Kumar Pramanik Vs the State on 24 June, 2016

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Calcutta held that,

On scrutiny of the statement of witnesses like Sekhar Kar, Ramesh Saha and Shankar Roy recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not find that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to torture by the present petitioners. However, on close scrutiny of all the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on consideration of the allegation made in the written complaint treated as FIR, I do not find any specific role attributed to the present petitioners in inflicting mental torture or physically assault on the opposite party no.2. The allegation made against the present petitioners are vague and general in nature.

Rabindra Kumar Pramanik Vs the State on 24 June, 2016

Santosh Kumar Yadav And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 8 September, 2016

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Allahabad has suggested to opt for CrPC 239 at Trial Court, instead of CrPC 482 at High Court.

Santosh Kumar Yadav And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 8 September, 2016

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011

Posted on September 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that,

In which it is clearly stated that the police Officer has to question the victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record the same. In the present case, the statement of the victim girl is concerned, the investigation officer stated in the charge sheet that he has contacted her and she confirmed the contents of the complaint given by the complainant. This Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to confirm the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person. This Court is of the view that the Officer, who is investigating the case, should record the statement as per the above said provisions. The first duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless otherwise the complainant’s version appraised by the Investigating Officer with the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely recording the statement as stated by the witnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation includes examination of the witnesses, confronting the witnesses on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version of the person who is aggrieved because of the said complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation.

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011

Case Details:

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011 (Case Details)

Citations: [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 5 452], [2011 CRLJ 3506], [2011 CRIMES 3 236], [2011 DMC 2 655], [2011 SCC ONLINE AP 562], [2011 CRI LJ 3506], [2012 E CR N 1 365]

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b10ee691cb22da6d1ec2 or https://mynation.net/docs/4921-2010/

Savitri WO Maruti Nayak Vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2017

Posted on September 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another beautiful judgment from High Court of Karnataka in this revision petition on Discharge dismissal.

From Para 10,

I have perused the said statements dated 10.07.2011, namely Sangondeppa Siddappa Hulagabal, the statement Sangondeppa Ningondeppa Lesappagol, Shrishail Basappa Gundagi, Kallappa Beerappa Dafedar, Mallappa Mahadev Baligar, Tammanna Beerappa Jakkannavar and Ningappa Siddappa Layannavar. Looking to all these statement of said witnesses, they are all dated 10.07.2011. Looking to the statement of these witnesses wherein they have stated that it is alleged before them by the complainant and her father that accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the husband of the complainant, her father-in-law and her mother-in-law were giving ill-treatment and harassment to her. So in the statement of all these witnesses absolutely there is no reference so far as the present petitioners- accused Nos.4 and 5 stating that they also giving such ill- treatment. The statement of these witnesses completely silent about the involvement of petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, looking to the statement of these witnesses it clearly goes to show that absolutely there is no allegation and even there is no statement of such witnesses that they were informed by either complainant or her father about the ill-treatment given by the present petitioners herein. When i.e. so it assumes importance whether really the prosecution placed prima facie material so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Looking to the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners which are referred above at Sl.Nos.1 to 4 principles laid down in the said decisions also goes to show that the proceedings against the accused person should not be as an abuse of process of the Court or by making false allegations. But here, it is do doubt true as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that in the beginning of the complaint there are some allegation even against petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5, but the same is not corroborated by the statement of independent witnesses about whose statements I have made the reference. Therefore, reading the entire charge sheet material and the principles in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it goes to show that there is no prima facie material so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned. The trial court while considering the application seeking discharge from the proceedings ought to have considered these aspects, which is not done by the trial court. The trial court wrongly comes to the conclusion that even there is prima facie case as against petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, the order passed by the court below suffers from legal infirmity. Therefore, it will not sustain in law.

Savitri WO Maruti Nayak Vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2017

MS Indian Oil Corporation Vs MS NEPC India Ltd. and Ors on 20 July, 2006

Posted on September 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment professes the lower courts to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant.

From Para 10,

While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.

MS Indian Oil Corporation Vs MS Nepc India Ltd. and Ors on 20 July, 2006

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi on 9 December, 2015

Appanna @ Laxmaiah Vs The State of Karnataka on 12 September 2012

Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989

Binod Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 April, 2016

Rabindra Kumar Pramanik Vs the State on 24 June, 2016

Santosh Kumar Yadav And Others Vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 8 September, 2016

Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011

Savitri WO Maruti Nayak Vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 April, 2017

MS Indian Oil Corporation Vs MS NEPC India Ltd. and Ors on 20 July, 2006