S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015

Posted on July 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Legal point explained: Court (Civil and Criminal) can allow amendments to the complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court, either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint.

Case brief: The complainant wanted to amend his complaint to include a poem which is the cause of defamation suit he filed on his step-brother.

From Para 17,

Insofar as merits of the contention regarding allowing of amendment application, it is true that there is no specific provision in the Code to amend either a complaint or a petition filed under the provisions of the Code, but the Courts have held that the petitions seeking such amendment to correct curable infirmities can be allowed even in respect of complaints.

S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July, 2015

Citations: [

Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs Mangal on 3 May, 2018

Posted on July 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Two questions of interpretation of law in regards to the DV Act are explained in this landmark Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.

Q1. Whether or not the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2008 are in the nature of criminal proceedings ?
Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are predominantly of civil nature and it is only when there is a breach of the protection order as is contemplated under Section 31 and failure or refusal to discharge duty without any sufficient cause by the protection officer as contemplated under Section 33, the proceedings assume the character of criminality. The first question is answered accordingly.

Q2. Whether or not the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ?
the second question is answered in the affirmative.

Now, one incidental question would arise as to from what stage the provisions of the Cr.P.C. would become applicable and in our view, the answer could be found out from the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the D.V. Act.
A combined reading of these provisions shows that the commencement of the proceedings would take place the moment, the Magistrate applies his mind to the contents of the application and passes any judicial order including that of issuance of notice. Once, the proceeding commences, the procedure under Section 28 of the D.V. Act, subject to the exceptions provided in the Act and the rules framed thereunder, would apply. In other words, save as otherwise provided in the D.V. Act and the rules framed thereunder and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 28, the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall govern the proceedings under Sections 12 to 23 and also those relating to an offence under Section 31 of the D.V. Act on their commencement.

Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs Mangal on 3 May, 2018

Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017

Posted on July 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a Quash judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Patna, based on no jurisdiction to the concerned court to make enquiry and trial in the present matter.

Having gone through the rival contentions of both sides and on perusal of record especially the complaint petition, the Court finds that the place of occurrence is not mentioned in any of the pragraphs of the complaint rather one paragraph discloses that on 04.09.2010, she was assaulted by all accused persons at Vadodra but wrongly spelt as Barauda. Even the addresses of the accused persons mentioned in the complaint is of Gujarat and there is no allegation that any demand or torture was committed at the parental home of the complainant situated at Nawada. Ordinarily place of enquiry and trial is held by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Sections 177, 178 and 179 Cr.P.C. deal with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts relating to enquiries and trials.

Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017

The State of Maharashtra Vs Abdul Karim Abdul Kadar on 12 December, 2015

Posted on July 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This Criminal Appeal is dismissed by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay as the that allegations levelled by the complainant are not contemplated in the definition of section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.

The allegation made by the knife?
that the husband did not give funds to meet the daily expenses.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Abdul Karim Abdul Kadar on 12 December, 2015

Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008

Posted on July 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a quash judgment from Shri Dr.Arijit Pasayat J delivered based on the 7th category of cases, from Bhajan Lal case, that may be quashed is

(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

IPC 219 – Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

IPC 211 – False charge of offence made with intent to injure

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

IPC 204 – Destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—Whoever secretes or destroys any 1[document or electronic record] which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such 1[document or electronic record] with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

IPC 203 – Giving false information respecting an offence committed

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation.

—In sections 201 and 202 and in this section the word “offence”, includes any act committed at any place out of 2[India], which, if committed in 2[India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460.

IPC 202 – Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform

Posted on July 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015

Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs Mangal on 3 May, 2018

Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017

The State of Maharashtra Vs Abdul Karim Abdul Kadar on 12 December, 2015

Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008

IPC 219 – Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law

IPC 211 – False charge of offence made with intent to injure

IPC 204 – Destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence

IPC 203 – Giving false information respecting an offence committed

IPC 202 – Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform