Similar to and based on Sonu Vs State, here also FIR was not quashed based on territorial jurisdiction but based on outcome of the Investigating Office’s enquiry, it can be transferred to respective police station.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Sonu and others Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another on 10 October, 2007
Shri Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra has delivered this wonderful judgment, clearly affirming that as per settled principles of law, if a FIR quash was requested which was filed at a wrong jurisdiction, the duty of the police SHO is to transfer it to the police station where the correct jurisdiction holds.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Parimal Vs Veena @ Bharti on 8 February, 2011
Case details:
- Marriage: 9.12.1986
- Husband filed a case for divorce on 27.4.1989
- Wife refused to receive the notice of the petition sent to her by the Court on 4.5.1989 vide registered AD cover for the date of hearing on 6.7.1989.
- Respondent/wife on 28.6.1989 was present at her house when the process server showed the summons to her. She read the same and refused to accept it
- Again on 7.8.1989, she refused to accept the notice for 8.9.1989, sent by the Court through process server
- The Court ordered issuance of fresh notices. One was issued vide ordinary process and the other vide Registered AD cover for 8.9.1989. Registered AD was returned to the Court with report of refusal, as she declined to receive the AD notice.
- Under the Court’s orders, summons were affixed at the house of the respondent/wife, but she chose not to appear.
- She was served through public notice on 6.11.1989 published in the newspaper ‘National Herald’ which was sent to her address, 3/47, First Floor, Geeta Colony, Delhi. This was placed on record and was not rebutted by the respondent/wife in any manner.
- After service vide publication dated 8.11.1989 as well as by affixation, respondent/wife was proceeded ex- parte in the divorce proceedings.
- Ex-parte judgment was passed by Addl. District Judge, Delhi on 28.11.1989 in favour of the appellant/husband and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.
- Two years after the passing of the decree of divorce, on 16.10.1991, the appellant got married and has two sons aged 17 and 18 years respectively from the said marriage.
The respondent, after the expiry of 4 years of the passing of the ex-parte decree of divorce dated 28.11.1989, moved an application dated 17.12.1993 for setting aside the same basically on the grounds that ex-parte decree had been obtained by fraud and collusion with the postman etc., to get the report of refusal and on the ground that she had not been served notice even by substituted service and also on the ground that even subsequent to obtaining decree of divorce the appellant did not disclose the fact of grant of divorce to her during the proceedings of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.). The said application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was also accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborated on the principle of “Sufficient Cause” Vs “Good Cause”. This is a vital piece of check the Hon’ble courts should do to ensure there was sufficient cause for the person who was to be present in Court on receiving Court summons/Notice.
From Para 9,
In this context, “sufficient cause” means that party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been “not acting diligently” or “remaining inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously.
From Para 10,
The only difference between a “good cause” and “sufficient cause” is that the requirement of a good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of a “sufficient cause”.
From Para 12,
In order to determine the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC, the test has to be applied is whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called on for hearing and did his best to do so. Sufficient cause is thus the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Therefore, the applicant must approach the court with a reasonable defence. Sufficient cause is a question of fact and the court has to exercise its discretion in the varied and special circumstances in the case at hand. There cannot be a strait-jacket formula of universal application.
The following ingredients are necessary to constitute bigamy:
(1) the accused must have contracted first marriage;
(2) he must have married again;
(3) the first marriage is subsisting at the time of the second marriage and
(4) the spouse must be living.
Durga @ Raja Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 6 July, 2018
In this judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ordered the State government to pay compensation of 1 lakh rupees to the accused due to the injustice inflicted over them by way of false implication. Our criminal Juris prudence gives more stress over avoiding of false implication of an innocent to the extent where hundred guilty may go scot- free. The spirit behind the same is very pious. Even otherwise, by one case of false implication of an innocent, rule of law loses one exponent (supporter) and a rebel with defiance towards rule of law is ready. Poor investigation with tainted prosecution is perfect recipe for such eventuality.
From Para 24,
Although, no such provision exists in the Cr.P.C. for compensating the accused but certainly State cannot wriggle out from its constitutional and tortious liability, in the present set of facts. Fundamental right of a person cannot be sacrificed at the altar of mis-governance or at the whims or because of poor investigation. State Government would be at liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officers/ investigation officers, if appropriate authority decides so, after giving opportunity of hearing to them and if their casualness and negligence are proved in an enquiry.
From Para 25,
Time has come when the Rule of Law is to be included as one of the essential components of infrastructure like road, water, electricity etc., otherwise these component of infrastructure and development would be sacrificed at the altar of mis-governance and lawlessness. Bridging of schism between rule of law and lawlessness is the need of the hours. It is expected from the Law Department, Home Department and Prosecution Department of the State Government that they will create a mechanism for scientific and methodical police investigation and scientific and methodical prosecution of the accused so that citizen may get justice and spirit of Right to Access Justice is fulfilled. A constant training programme or continuous education with latest technology be employed by the said authorities so that investigation and prosecution agency may march with the time and people at large be assured of their empowerment by way of Right to Access Justice.
State of Karnataka Vs H.K. Nagaraj Kumar on 16 April, 2018
This is judgment from a Senior Civil Judge at Tumkur. See how he totally flouts the settled principles in law established by Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments that if accused produces evidence of sterling quality which destroys the case of prosecution, it can be looked into.
From Para 9,
Therefore, at this stage, only on the documents produced by the accused No.2 and No.3, they cannot be discharged for the offences alleged against them.
[google-drive-embed url=”https://drive.google.com/file/d/12EpzvzDQQtsSToJedzxWCONnhekZ_HPV/preview?usp=drivesdk” title=”State of Karnataka Vs H.K. Nagaraj Kumar on 16 April, 2018.pdf” icon=”https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf” width=”100%” height=”400″ style=”embed”]
See the Perjury success Mr Nagaraj got on his MIL here.
Polugoni Jyothi Vs Polugoni Sydulu on 5 August, 2013
Result of not following the legal procedure dutifully can be seen in this DVC.
Darsi Saritha Vs Darsi Srinivasa Rao on 24 June, 2013
Another one of those ex parte DVC dole outs to Knife.
Kondrajula @ Syed Saroja Vs Syed Malik on 20 February, 2013
This DVC is dismissed due to this.
Coming to the aspect of dowry harassment of P.w.1 in the hands of respondent, as the very performance of marriage between P.w.1 and respondent is not proved by P.w.1 and further even P.w.1 failed to prove that both of them lived together under one roof, I am of the opinion that there is no need to discuss anything more with regard to demand of dowry and harassment of P.w.1 in the hands of respondent.
Yanamala Srilakshmi Vs Late Yanamala Ravi @ Ravindra on 14 February, 2018
Read Para 10 to know the arbitrary way Protection order is granted solely by the deposition of Knife, wherein husband is long dead to challenge it.
Now coming to the relief sought by the petitioner that is pertaining to maintenance and residential
orders, the allegation against the respondent as per P.W1 is that the respondent started harassing P.W1. On this aspect P.w1 elaborately deposed that about the harassment of R1 to R3 in her evidence. At one instance she and her child also confined in a room and not provided with food. After seven or eight days her parents came and saved their life. Subsequently she was treated by the parents now she is depending upon her parents mercy. Further coming to the aspect of Protection orders in view of above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for Protection order.
Kasukurthy Vijaya Kumari Vs Kasukurthy Bhaskar Subbarao on 6 August, 2013
One nice point raised by the Hon’ble judge in this order
Further it is admitted by P.w.1 and P.w.3 that R.2 who is a retired court employee has deposited Rs.2,25,000/- jointly in the name of P.w.1 and R.w.1 and also Rs.2,25,000/- in the name of younger brother of R.1, if that is so, where is the need for R.2 to harass P.w.1 to bring additional dowry along with R.1, R.3 to R.5, if really R.1 to R.5 harassed P.w.1 demanding P.w.1 to bring additional dowry, there is no need and necessity for R.2 to deposit Rs.2,25,000/- in the joint name of P.w.1 and R.w.1 from out of his retired benefits.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
