Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

Posted on July 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of the Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Paras 3-6,

3. Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent herself filed a petition vide FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and the same was decreed on 12.04.2018 and the said order and decree attained finality. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is not permissible. In support of his contentions he has relied on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Miyan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioners 2 and 3 herein, who are the aged parents of A-1.
4. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that she has filed FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 and the same was decreed and she has received an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as per the settlement taken place between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. She has also filed a petition vide M.C.No.39 of 2020 and also O.P.No.831 of 2018 on behalf of her son K.Naga Satya Sai towards maintenance and the said OP was closed on receipt of said amount of Rs.2 lakhs.
5. With the said submissions, the 2nd respondent specifically contended that she has no interest in continuing the present proceedings in Cr.No.800 of 2019 against the petitioners herein.
6. Considering the said aspects and also the fact that the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 2nd respondent was dissolved vide decree and order dt.12.04.2018 in FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 and in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Miyan’s case (supra) and also considering the contents of the counter affidavit, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings 2019(1) ALT (Crl.)276 (SC) in Cr.No.800 of 2019, pending on the file of WPS, DD, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein are quashed.

Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81574210/

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022

Posted on July 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court, relying on this case here, held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contents that the marriage between A1 and defacto complainant took place in the year 2016. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed FCOP.No.1087 of 2019. By an order dated 06.02.2020 in FCOP.No.1087 of 2019, the learned XIV Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Family Court Judge, Vijayawada passed an ex parte decree in favour of the defacto complainant. It is his submission that after obtaining the divorce, the defacto complainant filed the present complaint as against the petitioners on 19.03.2020, when the relation between A1 and defacto complainant as husband and wife is not subsisting.

From Paras 9 and 10,

9. In respect of the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court has come to a conclusion that since there is no relation between defacto-complainant and A1 as wife and husband, the proceedings in the above case has been quashed for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
10. In view of the above principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law for the reason that A1 and defacto-complainant married separately and are living separately.

Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167169919/

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Mohammad Miyan and Ors Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018

Posted on July 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,

Mr. R. K. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused, submits that the prosecution under section 498A of IPC was clearly not tenable in view of the case of the complainant herself that there had been a divorce almost four years before filing of the FIR.
We find much substance in the submission made by Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants-accused. Even in the FIR dated 18.8.2015, the complainant-wife has stated that her divorce had taken place about four years back. It is not possible to accept the contention made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant-wife that she made the statement in ignorance of Sharia law. She is a Headmistress and must be credited with due knowledge of her meritorious status.
In view of her own averment that she was divorced four years ago, we are of the view that the prosecution is not sustainable under section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Section 498A of the IPC opens with the words “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman….” Therefore, where the complainant approaches with a case that there has been a divorce long back i.e. four years ago before filing of the FIR, section 498A of IPC in terms would not be attracted. We accordingly consider it appropriate to quash the prosecution against all the accused persons under section 498A of IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Mohammad Miyan Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150839791/

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022

Posted on July 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Paras 5 and 6,

5 A careful perusal of the order passed by both the Courts below reveal that the learned Magistrate, based on the evidence and the materials, found that the respondent/wife has not proved the domestic violence caused by the petitioner/husband, however awarded Rs.3000/- as maintenance to the child. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in the appeal filed by the respondent/wife even though confirmed the findings of the learned Magistrate, enhanced the maintenance to Rs.5000/- without even giving any specific reason or findings.
6 It is settled proposition of law that the wife is entitled to get maintenance, if she is unable to maintain herself, invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. and during pendency of the divorce petition also she can claim interim maintenance or she can claim permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Leaving all the above, if the wife seeks maintenance under the Act, it is the duty of the wife to prove the domestic violence caused by the husband, whereas in this case, the Magistrate given a finding that there is no domestic violence and the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, even though confirmed the findings of the learned Magistrate, without giving any valid reason or findings, enhanced the maintenance. The wife has not even filed any revision or cross objections against the adverse findings made by both the Courts below against her.

S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022

Index of DV cases is here.

Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023

Posted on July 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Paras 8 and 9,

8. In order to seek relief under D.V. Act, the aggrieved person has to prove or prima facie show that there was domestic violence. That compelled him or her to seek relief under the said Act. Domestic violence is sine-qua-non for considering the application under the D.V. Act. In this case, the wife has been residing separately since 2005 from her husband. She never claimed maintenance under either the law or by her own petition. She is getting the interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- in the divorce petition filed by the husband. It is yet not concluded.
9. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, this Court is of the view that it is well-reasoned order and with correct findings that the respondent/wife failed to prove the domestic violence. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge appears to have not correctly examined the record, considered the rule of appreciating the evidence, and mechanically passed the impugned order. The impugned order is illegal, improper and
incorrect, and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023

Index of DV cases is here.

BNSS Sec 72 – Form of warrant of arrest and duration

Posted on July 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

72. Form of warrant of arrest and duration.—
(1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under this Code shall be in writing, signed by the presiding officer of such Court and shall bear the seal of the Court.
(2) Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.

The Entire Sanhita is here.

Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi Vs NCT of Delhi and Anr on 27 Nov 2013

Posted on July 9, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 21.1 and 21.2,

21. Findings
21.1 At the outset, this Court is of the view that having availed the remedy of revision before the Sessions Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the petitioner cannot be allowed to re-agitate the same point before this Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as it would amount to a second revision which is specifically barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. This petition amounts to a second revision petition in the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
21.2 Although the power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, it has to be used sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The petitioner has also not been able to make out any case of abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi Vs NCT of Delhi and Anr on 27 Nov 2013

State (CBI) Vs Hemendhra Reddy and Anr on 28 Apr 2023

Posted on July 3, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Paras 76 and 77,

76. Thus, a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions of this Court rendered in cases where final reports (closure reports) had already been submitted and
accepted makes the position of law very clear that even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted. It is also evident, that prior to carrying out a further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to review or recall the order accepting the final report.
77. We may summarise our final conclusion as under:
(i) Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted.
(ii) Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed.
(iv) Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation.
(v) There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

State (CBI) Vs Hemendhra Reddy and Anr on 28 Apr 2023

CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024

Posted on July 1, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court held as follows, while quashing false FIR against In-Laws,

From Para 10,

10. There are scores and scores of cases where allegations are made that have pointed overt acts by every member of the family which are sustained and further trial is permitted. There are even scores and scores of cases where every member of the family without rhyme or reason is dragged into the web of crime by frivolous complaints registered by the complainant/wife while the entire grievance is against the husband and every imaginary member of the family is dragged in. It is these cases which are to be nipped in the bud. Bud, I mean, at the stage of registration of the crime, failing which, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1

CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 21 Jun 2024

Posted on June 30, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Telangana High Court granted divorce to husband, by holding that,

From Para 16,

16. The obliteration of marital ties is entirely for the persons in the marriage and upon them to assess and resolve in the best way they think fit. The Court has a limited role in the whole affair and should not act as an executioner (in the sense of a hangman) or a counsellor to compel the parties to continue living as wife and husband, particularly where the meeting of minds between them has irrevocably ended. It is certainly not the Court’s work to ferret out faultlines in the evidence in negation of cruelty in an altruistic zeal for preserving the marriage. This kind of exercise is unwarranted and pointless.

From Paras 17 and 18,

17. It is relevant to state that the Trial Court also held that the brief “reunion” of the parties in May, 2015 precluded the appellant from re-agitating events prior to the respondent coming to live with the appellant as it indicated forgiveness on the part of the appellant. We are unable to agree with the reasoning and the presumption.
18. Condonation and forgiveness means restoration of the offending spouse to the same position as he/she was before the offence was committed. The evidence must also point to this direction: Dr.N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane13. Forgiveness would be a misnomer in a case where the wife stays with the husband for 2 months and then leaves the matrimonial home and lodges an F.I.R. against the husband and his family members for offences punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. and the Dowry Prohibition Act: Malathi Ravi, M.D v. B.V. Ravi, M.D.14. The Supreme Court in that case held that the husband had been treated with mental cruelty and affirmed the decree of divorce granted by the High Court.

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 21 Jun 2024

Trial Court Order dismissing the Divorce petition:

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 02 Nov 2021

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022

Mohammad Miyan and Ors Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018

S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022

Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023

BNSS Sec 72 – Form of warrant of arrest and duration

Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi Vs NCT of Delhi and Anr on 27 Nov 2013

State (CBI) Vs Hemendhra Reddy and Anr on 28 Apr 2023

CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024

D. Narsimha @Narsimlu Vs D.Anita @Vaishnavi on 21 Jun 2024