Another FIR transfer instead of FIR quash judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court
Author: ShadesOfKnife
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. 🙂
Sudhir Mansinghka Vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 August, 2015
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.
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.
