An order for inquiry for perjury was passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court under section 340 of Cr.P.C against offences under sections 193, 196, 199, 200 and 209 of IPC.
This Order was set aside by Apex Court here.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 8 May, 2008
Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has passed an order to transfer a case from Vadodara to another police station having territorial jurisdiction or to CID Crime or any other independent agency. This without the notice to/knowledge of the original complainant. Read on.
From Para 5,
The informant was not impleaded as a party therein. No notice was issued on the said appeals. No reason has been assigned. The Court did not advert to the question as to whether it had any jurisdiction to pass the said order. Why such a concession was made by the learned APP on the very first day of hearing is not known.
….
The Court should not interfere in the matter at an initial stage in regard thereto. If it is found that the investigation has been conducted by an Investigating Officer who did not have any territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the same should be transferred by him to the police station having the requisite jurisdiction.
From Para 6,
It is of some significance that the High Court exercised its jurisdiction even without notice to the petitioner. The investigation has to be carried out on the basis of the allegations made. The first informant is required to be examined; statements of his witnesses were required to be taken; the accused were also required to be interrogated.
The undue haste with which the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction, in our opinion, should not be encouraged.
Finally,
We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where we should refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders. Consequently, the charge sheets filed by the Wagodhia Police Station stand set aside. The concerned Police Officer of Vadodara Police Station would initiate appropriate investigation in the matter in accordance with law.
Aaisha Uttarwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2016
Peculiar case here. A writ petition is filed seeking to challenge the transfer of a zero FIR registered from a PS in Chhattisgarh to a PS in Telangana.
Case Brief:
- Marriage happened at Bilaspur.
- Alleged instances of dowry-related cruelty happened at Secunderabad.
- Due to this cruelty Knife goes back to parent’s home and files 498A case at Bilaspur.
- Complaint is turned into a zero FIR at Bilaspur.
- After preliminary inquiry/examination, SP of Bilaspur transferred the case to Alwal PS through DSP Secunderabad for further investigation holding that the place of occurrence falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Alwal.
Argument made is that the Officer In-charge of the police station was obliged to investigate the offence completely and without completion of the investigation, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police, to transfer the F.I.R./case diary to the Police Station Alwal, District Secunderabad (Telangana) for further investigation and therefore, the order of transfer of F.I.R./case diary to the Police Station Alwal, District Secunderabad (Telangana) is unsustainable in law and therefore, order dated 09/07/2015 passed by Superintendent of Police be set-aside and Station House Officer, Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur be directed to investigate the offence completely and respondent No. 2 be directed to send back the case diary back to Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur for investigation of the matter.
Finally,
As the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC being cognizable, the Station House Officer, Tarbahar Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) was obliged to investigate the said offence completely by virtue of provisions contained in Section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C., and unless, the investigation of said crime is completed fully as per procedure laid down in Cr.P.C., F.I.R. could not have been directed to be transferred and such a direction is contrary to law laid down by Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur (supra).
Ramesh Kumari Vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006
This is another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it is held FIR has to be mandatorily registered for every Cognizable Offence reported in a Police Station. If the accused is a police official, CBI can file case and investigate it.
Krishna Veni Nagam Vs Harish Nagam on 9 March, 2017
In just judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that
in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons.
The safeguards can be:-
i) Availability of video conferencing facility.
ii) Availability of legal aid service.
iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV CPC.
iv) E-mail address/phone number,
Citations : [2017 SCC 4 150], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 236], [2017 AIR SC 1345], [2017 CTC 2 457], [2017 CDR SC 2 202], [2017 AJR 2 462], [2017 ALR 122 905], [2017 ALT 5 4], [2017 ALD 3 151], [2017 BOMCR 3 62], [2017 CLT 123 1054], [2017 DMCSC 2 173], [2017 GLT 2 29], [2017 JKJ SC 2 35], [2017 KHC 2 380], [2017 KLJ 2 549], [2017 KLT 2 593], [2017 LW 3 721], [2017 MPLJ 3 344], [2017 MHLJ 4 764], [2017 OLR 1 1033], [2017 RCR CIVIL 2 358], [2017 SCALE 3 471], [2017 SCJ 6 392], [2017 WBLR SC 3 622], [2017 WLN SC 2 26], [2017 SCC CIV 2 394]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43287493/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58ca392a2713e10674449271
This judgment is overruled in Santhini Vs Vijaya Venketesh here.
Santhini Vs Vijaya Venkatesh on 9 October, 2017
Justice Dipak Misra has issued guidelines in the usage of video conferencing especially in matrimonial cases in the interests of Justice and to avoid delays.
Citations: [2017 BOMCR 6 315], [2017 CTC 6 81], [2017 KHC 5 48], [2017 KLT 4 415], [2017 RCR CIVIL 4 623], [2017 SCALE 12 359], [2018 SCC 1 1], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1202], [2017 INSC 1023]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184536583/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/59dbc07bce686e237b6a89fc
Bimla Rawal Vs. State on 1 January, 2008
Another FIR transfer instead of FIR quash judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Anr on 20 October, 2008
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
From Para 9,
In all these cases there was either statements of witnesses or seizure of black jaggery and olum materials being used for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. Whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty. That being so, the interference at the threshold with the F.I.R. is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in R.P. Kapoor and Bhajan Lal cases (supra).
From Para 10,
Ultimately, the acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons is a matter of trial. These are not the cases where it can be said that the FIR did not disclose commission of an offence. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR in the concerned cases.
Niraj Trivedi Vs State on 4 January, 2008
Another of Shri justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra’s awesome judgments from Hon’ble Delhi High Court. If no cause of action occurred in the jurisdiction of a police, the police may register the case but should transfer the case to the police station with correct jurisdiction.
Radhakrishna and another Vs Gokul and others on 31 October, 2013
This is a landmark judgment where in Hon’ble Supreme Court has held out the settle principles in dealing with compensation paid in case of accidental deaths.
In Sarla Verma v. D.T.C. (2009) 6 SCC 121, a two-Judge Bench of this Court took cognizance of the lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation to the victims of accidents caused by motor vehicles, referred to the judgments in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 and made the following observations:
To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand.Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceasedStep 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency” to the family.Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
From Paras 15 and 16,
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment is modified and it is declared that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.7,00,000 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount with effect from the date of filing petition under Section 166 of the Act.
Respondent No.3 is directed to pay the amount of enhanced compensation and interest within a period of three months by getting prepared two demand drafts of equal amount in the names of appellant Nos.1 and 2. It will be open to respondent No.3 to recover from respondent Nos.1 and 2 their respective shares of the compensation.
Here Respondent No.3 is the insurance company. 🙂
