This is a wonderful judgment from Justice J R Midha explaining in detail and elaborate what is an offence under Section 209 IPC and how to get the offender punished.
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
The procedure to file a perjury case is detailed in this nice judgment from Madras High Court.
Wonderful point:
Since the offences, with which the applicant is charged, are bailable, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable
Read Paras 5-10
Even though Section 324 IPC is made non-bailable via Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 2005, (Act No.25 of 2005), but it was NOT appointed into force, by a notification in the Official Gazette by Central Government.
Anticipatory bail granted by Kerala High Court for offence under section 324 of IPC
Anticipatory bail granted in cases filed under various IPC sections. The bare section is here.
Supreme Court of India
Allahabad High Court
Bombay High Court
Kerala High Court
District Courts
Index of all Bail matters is here.
Anticipatory bail granted under section 438 of IPC against an offence under section 324 of IPC (voluntarily causing harm).
Bail conditions
1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays in between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months.
2) The petitioner shall not commit similar offences during the bail period.
3) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses.
4) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.
Relatives residing separately are set free from the proceedings of Domestic violence case by Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the knife filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and approached the Hon’ble court with unclean hands and committed fraud upon the Hon’ble.
Key (Tricky) Highlight around applicability of CrPC but not Sec 468 CrPC:
24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 508.
Citations : [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 90], [2012 CRLJ SC 309], [2012 ALLMR CRI SC 369], [2011 CRIMES SC 4 51], [2011 SUPREME 6 181], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 129], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 1], [2011 SCC 12 588], [2011 SLT 6 434], [2011 AIOL 597], [2011 SCALE 9 295], [2011 JT 11 177], [2012 SCC CRI 2 614], [2011 ACR SC 3 3544], [2011 DMC SC 3 7], [2011 KCCR 4 3283], [2011 KLJ 3 40], [2011 KLT SN 4 69], [2011 NCC 2 544], [2011 SCR 10 557], [2011 UC 3 1758], [2012 SCC CIV 2 742]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1337239/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af03e4b014971141557d
Another previous judgment cited in this judgment is available here.
Index DV case laws is here.
Fraud on Hon’ble Court is always viewed seriously.
In this Supreme Court judgment, a mutual consent Divorce decree is set aside because knife says consent was obtained under pressure and threat.
Bad Behavior has blocked 307 access attempts in the last 7 days.
