Very good and straight-forward judgment from Justice Pratibha Rani of Delhi High Court in a case under PWDV Act.
If the Knife had good academics, had worked in past and sitting idle now just awaiting dole outs into her begging bowl, that proves two things
In this landmark case, Supreme Court clarified the position on whether a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?”
Trivia: The victim Lalita Kumari is recovered here.
Conclusion/Directions:
111) In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
(vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
(viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
Citation: [(2014) 2 SCC 1], [2014 JCC SC 1 1], [2013 SCALE 13 559], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 979], [2014 AIR SC 187], [2013 JT 14 399], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 243], [2013 AIOL 744], [2013 SLT 9 1], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 680], [2013 SUPREME 8 1], [2014 CRIMES SC 4 488], [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 4444], [2013 AIR SC 6386], [2014 SCC CRI 1 524], [2014 SCC 2 1], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 999], [2013 CTC 6 353], [2013 KERLT 4 632], [2014 CRILJ 470], [2014 AIC 134 155], [2013 KLJ 4 686], [2014 ECRN 1 180], [2014 KCCR 2 1305], [2014 CHN 2 7], [2013 PLJR 4 504], [2014 GLT SC 2 1], [2013 KHC 4 552], [2014 NCC 1 161], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 100], [2014 ALLCC 84 719], [2014 SCJ 1 68], [2014 GLD SC 2 355], [2013 JLJR 4 505], [2013 UC 3 2017], [2013 MPHT SC 5 336], [2013 AD SC 12 209], [2014 OLR 1 5], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 159], [2013 MLJ CRI 4 579], [2014 LW CRL 1 1], [2014 CHN SC 2 7], [2014 OLR SC 1 5], [2013 KLT SC 4 632], [2013 ALLMR CRI 4444], [2013 KLT 4 632], [2013 MLJ CRL 4 579], [2013 BOMCR CRI 4 680], [2014 CRI LJ 470], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 4 979], [2013 JT SC 14 399], [2013 AIR SCW 6386]
Other links :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10239019/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af33e4b0149711415cb3
The 8th Direction in above judgment is modified as follows:
This petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the Notice issued by the Station House Officer, Nacharam Police Station in accordance with and in terms of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as ‘the Code’), as bad in law.
However, even assuming that the allegation made by the petitioner against the Police that he has been detained from 9-30 am to 8-30 pm in the Police Station continuously for eleven long hours is true and correct, the same would not render the exercise of power under Section 41-A of the Code by the Police arbitrary. At the most, any such conduct and attitude of the Police would amount to violation of the human rights assured to the petitioner. Any complaint of breach of human rights by the Police, first of all, should have been drawn to the attention of the Superior Police Officers, such as, the Assistant Commissioner of Police / Deputy Commissioner of Police / Superintendent of Police, etc. If there was no redressal at their hands, the matter can also be agitated before the State Human Rights Commission. But, that cannot be converted into a ground for quashing the Notice under Section 41A of the Code.
In this judgment, Apex Court clarified that once a Magistrate orders police investigation under section 156(3), police are bound to
Wonderful judgment from Bombay High Court setting aside judgments of 2 lower courts in regards to the maintainability of application under Section 340 of CrPC.
From Para 7,
Whenever an application under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed, the Civil Manual Chapter XIX para 337 requires that it should be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case i.e. a case where a Judicial Enquiry is contemplated. The learned Civil Judge should have, therefore, directed the application to be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case.
Good order from Hon’ble Bombay High Court in regards to granting maintenance to a knife under section 20 of PWDV Act, who did not even aver in the compliant that there was any domestic violence at all which would not make her a ‘Aggrieved Person’.
The maintenance of Rs.2 lakhs per month granted by Family court is set aside by the high court and an interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- was issued from date of order till the Family Court decides the matter.
Few highlights from Judgment given below.
She would submit that the application is devoid of such pleadings attributing domestic violence and thus in absence of domestic violence being attributed and demonstrated, an application under Section 12 cannot be entertained and no relief can be granted under Section 20 of the said Act in the nature of the monetary relief.
The Family Court has also perused the bank statement of the wife and has recorded that there are various deposits to her account and the Court has found the explanation offered by the wife that her mother is carrying out the business of stock broking from her account to be evasive.
During the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court on its remand, the petitioner-husband would pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-per month to the wife towards her maintenance, till the Family Court decides the mater.
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
Justice M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY in this Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment clarifies the non-maintainability of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC, in a Domestic Violence Case, when the Act itself has a section 29 for the purpose of revision (as well as Appeal).
Citations : [2017 SCC ONLINE HYD 381], [2018 ALT CRI 2 70]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150555325/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a28d6c54a9326135bfa09ab
Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.
This is a wonderful and interesting judgment from Hon’ble Allahabad High Court involving advocate fraud.
Salient Point of interest:
[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”]
In this judgment from Allahabad High court, maintenance for knife is denied on the ground that she is able to maintain herself as she is earning more than 2200/-per month but allowed for the minor child, even when the husband and knife are divorced.
Good judgment again from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court which held that Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Bad Behavior has blocked 307 access attempts in the last 7 days.
