In this judgment of Apex Court, Justice AK Goel held that there are allegation against accused in FIR which need to be dealt with during trial but quashing same by Hon’ble High Court is set aside.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Bhura Ram And Ors Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008
Another simple Supreme Court judgment clarifying the jurisdiction that the magistrate can exercise.
The facts stated in the complaint disclose that the complainant left the place where she was residing with her husband and in-laws and came to the city of Sri Ganganagar, State of Rajasthan and that all the alleged acts as per the complaint had taken place in the State of Punjab. The Court at Rajasthan does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. On the basis of the factual scenario disclosed by the complainant in the complaint, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of cause of action arose in Rajasthan and, therefore, the Magistrate concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009
Simple case on allegations not meeting the criterion on IPC 498A is confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this 482 quash judgment.
When we examine the facts of the present case particularly the FIR and the charge sheet we find that there is no such allegation either in the FIR or in the charge sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation(a). There is no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause the Respondent No. 2 to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her life. The ingredient to constitute an offence under explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC are not at all mentioned either in FIR or in charge sheet and in absence thereof, no case is made out. Therefore, explanation (a) as found in Section 498A IPC is clearly not attracted in the present case.
We, therefore, now proceed to examine as to whether the case would fall under explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC constituting cruelty of the nature as mentioned in explanation (b). In order to constitute cruelty under the said provision there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. When the allegation made in the FIR and charge sheet is examined in the present case in the light of the aforesaid provision, we find that no prima facie case even under the aforesaid provision is made out to attract a case of cruelty.
Citations : [2010 SCC CRI 1 1412], [2009 AIOL 863], [2009 SCC 14 466], [2009 SUPREME 5 281], [2009 ANJ SC SUPP 2 55], [2009 JT 8 617], [2009 SCR 9 1187], [2009 SCALE 9 70], [2009 AIC SC 80 192], [2009 ECRN SC 3 818]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/437533/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aec9e4b0149711414c59
Index of Quash judgments is here.
S.Muralidharan Vs State by Inspector of Police on 3 May, 2018
Madras High Court delivered this judgment dismissing the revision petition filed by accused to set aside a charge made against him.
20. The charge should contain the name of the offence, if the law which creates the offence gives any specific name or if no specific name is given, the definition of the offence must be stated. The law and section against which the offence is said to have been committed to be mentioned in the charge. Wherever necessary, the time and place of offence and the person against whom the offence committed should be mentioned. If necessary, the manner in which the offence committed should be mentioned. The Court while frame charge should take all endeavour that the accused against whom the charge is framed shall have sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged. The charge so framed shall not mislead the accused. The omission or error in the content of the charge shall not be material, leading to failure of justice.
Navdeep Singh Vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 19 March, 2018
In this judgment from Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was held that after this court has gone through the FIR in which, no specific allegation has been leveled qua demand of dowry, nor was such evidence brought before the court in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Hence revision is rejected.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Soma Chakravarty vs State Through CBI on 10 May, 2007 (S B Sinha)
Justice S.B. Sinha has the follow judgment on the Soma Chakravarty case.
Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the court must come to a prima facie finding that there exists some materials therefor. Suspicion cannot alone, without anything more, it is trite, form the basis therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge
Here is the judgment from Justice Markandey Katju in this same case.
Soma Chakravarty vs State Through CBI on 10 May, 2007 (M Katju)
Justice Markandey Katju of Apex Court has, in this judgment of Soma Chakravarty case, affirmed that…
if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.
At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.
Here is the judgment from Justice S.B.Sinha in this same case.
P.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala and Anr on 27 January, 2010
Again in this Supreme Court Judgment, it is affirmed that…
Section 227 in the new Code confers special power on the Judge to discharge an accused at the threshold if upon consideration of the records and documents, he find that “there is not sufficient ground” for proceeding against the accused. In other words, his consideration of the record and document at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228, if not, he will discharge the accused. This provision was introduced in the Code to avoid wastage of public time which did not disclose a prima facie case and to save the accused from avoidable harassment and expenditure.
From Para 10,
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” clearly show that the Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the Court, after the trial starts. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.
… And
It was pointed out that the confession of Constable Ramachandran Nair is inadmissible since this confession is made by an accused which cannot be used against a coaccused except for corroboration that too in a case where both accused are being tried jointly for the same offence.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Chandra Shekhar Alias Lalla Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 April, 2018
Another wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court in regards to the principle if grave suspicion exist the trial court should commit the case to trial.
A lot of judgments are citing herein.
CBI, Hyderabad Vs K. Narayana Rao on 21 September, 2012
This Judgment from Apex Court based on Sajjan Kumar case affirms that the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud.
22) … In the law of negligence, professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing some special skills.
23) A lawyer does not tell his client that he shall win the case in all circumstances. Likewise a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practising and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. This is what the person approaching the professional can expect. Judged by this standard, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings, viz., either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess.
Citations: [2012 SCC 9 512], [2012 SCC CIV 4 737], [2012 SCC CRI 3 1183], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 766], [2012 CRILJ 4610], [2012 KERLT 4 92], [2012 CTC 6 569], [2012 GUJ LH 3 373], [2013 LW 1 681]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186107198/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1ee4b0149711415a83
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.
