This quash judgment from hon’ble high court of patna which held that there was no jurisdiction for Magistrate in Dharbhanga to prosecute the husband for 498A, whereas all the alleged offences occured in Hyderabad. Moreover there was a decree of divorce granted 2 years before instituting the 498A case!!
Author: ShadesOfKnife
G.Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017
This is the quash judgment from hon’ble high court of Karnataka, relying on Y Abhraham Ajith case, wherein it was held that when all allegations are stated to have happened at Vellore, Tamilnadu, Indiranagar police doesn’t have jurisdiction to file the FIR in Bengaluru, Karnataka.
State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017
This is a short revision order from hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that due to limitation restriction, the complaint was time barred and as such Magistrate was right in not taking cognizance of this case. The knife filed 498A case after separating from husband for 10-12 years!!!
And the sweet response from the judge for the assertion that “498A IPC is a continuing offence” was, It is not so.
Amrendu Jyoti And Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 19 December, 2006
In this judgment of Chhattisgarh High court, IPC 498A was held to be a continuing offence as the allegations of mental cruelty happened over a telephone call, at a place which actually does not have jurisdiction. Funny.
Anyways this was turned around by hon’ble Supreme Court in 2014. Go here to read judgment.
Som Mittal Vs Govt. Of Karnataka
In this set of judgments from Hon’ble Supreme Court, the importance of sticking to the topic of relevance of the case while writing/delivering judgments.
In Jan 29th judgment, Markandey Katju J went into a irrelevant topic of situation in UP due to unavailability of anticipatory bail in his concurring judgment and thereafter issued directions to send a copy of his judgment to a slew of government entities.
In Feb 21st judgment, another 3 judge bench headed by CJI K G Balakrishnan has held that,
From Para 12,
When this Court renders judgments, it does so with great care and responsibility. The law declared by this Court is binding on all courts. All authorities in the territory of India are required to act in aid of it. Any interpretation of a law or a judgment, by this Court, is a law declared by this Court. The wider the power, more onerous is the responsibility to ensure that nothing is stated or directed in excess of what is required or relevant for the case, and to ensure that the Court’s orders and decisions do not create any doubt or confusion in regard to a legal position in the minds of any authorityor citizen, and also to ensure that they do not conflict with any other decision or existing law. Be that as it may.
Syed Ajaz Pasha Vs State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2018
The judiciary is placing peculiar conditions to grant bail, obviously due to the peculiar circumstances that are presented by accused these days.
One such condition is
4) He shall not apply for return of his passport till conclusion of trial.
C.H. Siva Prasad and Ors Vs State of A.P. on 13 August 1998
In line with Gurbaksh Singh case here, AP High Court also delivered this judgment holding that
From Para 21,
It is also required to notice that an application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC as the case may be can be filed only after the arrest of the accused person or detained without a warrant. It would not be possible for any accused to file any application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC while the operation of the order under Section 438 Cr.PC is in force. Under those circumstances, the question of directing the accused person to apply for and obtain a regular bail even while the directions issued in exercise of the power under Section 438 Cr.PC are in operation may become difficult and such application may not be maintainable.
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, then held,
In Para 22,
On an analysis and a close reading of the decisions referred to above, the following propositions would emerge:
(1) This Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.PC may direct the release of the accused person in a given case only for a specific period and direct the accused person to apply for and obtain regular bail. This would necessarily mean that the operation of the order would come to an end immediately after the specified time and the accused person has to necessarily surrender or get arrested so as to enable the accused person to file an application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC as the case maybe.(2) This Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power and discretion under Section 438 of the Code can restrict the operation of directions issued under the said provision at the initial stage and extend the same until further orders;
(3) The Court exercising the power and jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code is entitled to issue necessary directions directing release of the accused person in the event of his or her arrest without specifying any period; and
(4) The power and jurisdiction of this Court or Court of Session under Section 438 of the Code is not limited or circumscribed in any manner whatsoever requiring to limit the operation of the directions to release the accused person in the event of his or her arrest.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Louis Vuitton Malletier Vs Mr. Omi & Anr. On 07 August, 2018
In this contempt judgment, hon’ble Delhi High Court held that making false statements before court under oath, can be viewed as contempt in face of court and that it is entitled in law to invoke its contempt jurisdiction.
Even though reports were submitted by two Local Commissioners (is a person appointed by the Court in pursuance of its powers vested under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and is normally authorised to examine witnesses, conduct local and scientific investigations and/or sale of property, perform a ministerial act, examine accounts, partition of property and execute any other order as directed by the Court) respondent no.2/ defendant no.2-contemnor made contrary statement.
The lies were: about the duration of operation of his shop from the suit premises as well as the type of the goods that respondent no.2/ defendant no.2-contemnor dealt in.
Dhariwal Industries Ltd Vs Kishore Wadhwani on 06 September, 2016
Hon’ble Apex Court held that
In CrPC 301,
The role of the informant or the private party is limited during the prosecution of a case in a Court of Session. The counsel engaged by him is required to act under the directions of public prosecutor.
And, in CrPC 302,
As far as Section 302 CrPC is concerned, power is conferred on the Magistrate to grant permission to the complainant to conduct the prosecution independently.
Rule
when a complainant wants to take the benefit as provided under Section 302 CrPC, he has to file a written application making out a case in terms of J.K. International (supra) so that the Magistrate can exercise the jurisdiction as vested in him and form the requisite opinion.
Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 15 May, 2018
In this order, Hon’ble Apex Court has referred a matter regarding the valid time period of an anticipatory bail, to larger bench. The landmark pronouncement came on 29 January 2020 by a 5-judge bench here. The landmark precedent from an 1980 constitution bench is available here.
It was earlier mentioned in Supreme Court on 19 September, 2018 in the court of 3 judges bench led by CJI and was directed to be listed after a week before appropriate Bench as per roster, subject to removal of defects, if any.
Recently, it was heard by 5-judge bench on 23 October, 2019 and the judgment was reserved, after the arguments were concluded.
The final status of the case [Case No. SLP(Crl) No. 007281 – 007282 / 2017], is available here.
An detailed analysis is available here.
