CrPC 314 – Oral arguments and memorandum of arguments

Posted on December 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

314. Oral arguments and memorandum of arguments.—

(1) Any party to a proceeding may, as soon as may be, after the close of his evidence, address concise oral arguments, and may, before he concludes the oral arguments, if any, submit a memorandum to the Court setting forth concisely and under distinct headings, the arguments in support of his case and every such memorandum shall form part of the record.
(2) A copy of every such memorandum shall be simultaneously furnished to the opposite party.
(3) No adjournment of the proceedings shall be granted for the purpose of filing the written arguments unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers it necessary to grant such adjournment.
(4) The Court may, if it is of opinion that the oral arguments are not concise or relevant, regulate such arguments.

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Posted on December 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. I have perused the written arguments. None of the contentions raised in the written arguments are considered. In fact, the decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and Patna High Court have been cited in the written arguments. The same does not find place in the judgment of the appellate Tribunal. The lower appellate Court shall keep in mind that written arguments are submitted not for fancy sake. It is a right conferred by the statute to a party to submit the written arguments which are meant for consideration and adjudication. No Court shall ignore the written arguments and refuse to consider the same. If it were to do so, they are liable for action by the superior Courts. This is nothing short of judicial dishonesty. A judge is not supposed to exhibit such dishonesty. A judge is supposed to exhibit extreme patience and give long rope and hear arguments and then pronounce his decision after adjudicating the matter. I find that this is a classic case where the judge refused to consider the written arguments. He has not considered the decisions cited before him. In such cases, the judgment should not be upheld. It deserves to be set aside since no party can be allowed to leave the Court with dissatisfaction for non-consideration of his arguments. If such things were to happen, the litigant public certainly loses confidence in the judicial system. I am of the considered view that the appellate Court’s judgment shall not stand for judicial scrutiny before this Court for the learned Judge’s failure to consider the written arguments and adjudicate the matter in the light of the written arguments which lead to miscarriage of justice.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A No. 13 of 1992 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. It shall consider every point raised in the written arguments by traversing through the necessary material namely evidence including oral and documentary and give answer to every point and adjudicate the same as expeditiously as possible. Both the parties are directed to appear before the appellate Tribunal on 1.4.2003. In view of the direction for their appearance, there is no need to issue a fresh notice to both the parties. Costs shall abide by the result of the appeal.

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Citations: [(2003) 02 AP CK 0073], [2003 (3) ALT 127], [2003 (1) LS 324]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17028650/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48cbc607dba348ffee82e

https://lextechsuite.com/G-JAYA-RAO-VERSUS-STATE-OF-AP-2003-02-01

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/947782-g-jay-rao-vs-state

This was followed in this subsequent case here.

Rajib Kumar Roy Vs Sushmita Saha on 21 Aug 2023

Posted on December 20, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court terminated a dead marriage u/A 142 of Constitution of India and said as follows,

From Para 5,

…
…
Continued bitterness, dead emotions and long separation, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, can be construed as a case of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage”, which is also a facet of “cruelty”. In Rakesh Raman v. Kavita reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 497, this is precisely what was held, that though in a given case cruelty as a fault, may not be attributable to one party alone and hence despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage keeping the parties together amounts to cruelty on both sides. Which is precisely the case at hand.
Whatever may be the justification for the two living separately, with so much of time gone by, any marital love or affection, which may have been between the parties, seems to have dried up. This is a classic case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of this court in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544 which has held that in such cases where there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage then dissolution of marriage is the only solution and this Court can grant a decree of divorce in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Rajib Kumar Roy Vs Sushmita Saha on 21 Aug 2023

Mahalakshmi and Ors Vs State of Karnataka on 30 Nov 2023

Posted on December 13, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court passed this Order, whereby the allegations in the complaint are held to be vague and therefore case against the petitioners was Quashed.

Super Specific Allegations:

We have perused the complaint, as well as the charge sheet. In the complaint, the informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran had alleged that in February 2016, appellant no.1 – Mahalakshmi commented on her physical appearance and on 20.09.2016, Mahalakshmi had thrown the personal belongings of Rekha Bhaskaran in the dustbin. In the charge sheet, however, the only allegation that was found to be substantiated was the second allegation, that is, the appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi had thrown some of the personal belongings of the informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran on the ground, as they were not kept at the proper place. Further, appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi had cursed the informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran in foul words.

Visits to India:

It is the contention of appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi that the assertions made in the complaint are false and incorrect. However, it is accepted that she was living and working in Canada. Further,sometime in March 2016, she visited India to attend her friend’s wedding in Mysore and stayed there for nearly twenty days. Again,in September 2016, she had remained in India for almost 12 days when her father, accused no.2 – Surendra Prasad, was operated and hospitalized under critical care for two to three weeks.

Reasoning and Decision:

Having considered the charge sheet filed, we are of the view that the assertions made therein are very vague and general. One instance unless portentous, in the absence of any material evidence of interference and involvement in the marital life of the complainant, may not be sufficient to implicate the person as having committed cruelty under section 498A of the IPC. Given that the appellants were not residing at the marital home, and appellant no.1 was not even living in India, the absence of specific details that constitute cruelty, we would accept the present appeal.
Accordingly, we quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants. However, we clarify that if any material comes on record during the recording of evidence, it will be open to the trial court to take recourse to Section 319 of the Code and proceed following the law.

Mahalakshmi and Ors Vs State of Karnataka on 30 Nov 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/mahalakshmi-versus-the-state-of-karnataka

https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-news/498a-ipc-sc-one-instance-unless-portentous-not-sufficient-to-implicate-a-person-for-cruelty-read-order-209416

Supreme Court: Quashes Section 498A Case Against Husband’s Sisters & Cousins

https://lawtrend.in/supreme-court-quashes-498a-case-against-husbands-relative-says-one-trivial-instance-not-sufficient-for-cruelty/

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/court-dismisses-498a-case-against-husband-s-relative-ruling-that-one-minor-incident-is-insufficient-to-establish-cruelty-supreme-court-in-mahalakshmi-ors-v-the-state-of-karnataka-anr–7056.asp

Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (Criminal Appeal against DVC Compensation Order)

Posted on December 13, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Faced with a perverse Compensation Order in the DV case here, I filed a Criminal Appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Ongole, Prakasam which got transferred/assigned to the Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam.

The case began with issuance of notice to the Respondent, which took me many months, since I engaged an advocate this time to argue this Appeal. I had to think through lot of scenarios before coming to the conclusion to engage an advocate this time, instead of facing the case as Party-in-person.

After failing twice to issue notices on the Respondent, we sought Court permission to file STEPS petition (for newspaper publication). The Family Court allowed the petition on same date.

I am hopeful that the Appeal will be allowed in Feb 2024.

My hope got stretched to 1 more year.

That loafer judge got transferred to a different Court a new Lady Judge came to Family Court, Ongole.

She heard the case in Feb 2025 (yes not in 2024!) and delivered decision in Mar 2025.

I won the Appeal case. Here is the Judgment

Pamarati Sandeep Bhavan Vs Pamarati Anuradha and Anr on 03 Mar 2025

Go back to Index of my DV case here.

P Amutha Vs Gunsekaran on 23 Dec 2022

Posted on December 1, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of High Court of Madras held that maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as debt as she is not a creditor.

From Para 9 (cites Bhagwant Narnawre Vs Radhika Narnawre and Ashokbhai Devsingbhai Chauhan Vs Taraben Ashokbhai Chauhan),

9. Further , some issue has been considered by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in ‘Ashokbhai Devsingbhai Chauhan /vs/ Taraben Ashokbhai Chauhan’. In that case, the Principal Family Court, Ahamedabad directed the Bank of Baroda, Science City Branch, to deduct Rs.30,000/- per month from the pension account of the husband and credit to the account of the wife towards the maintenance amount in arrears. After considering the judgments, viz., (1) Om Prakash /vs/ Javitri Devi (Manu/PH/2052/2017 : 2018(1) DMC 462), (2) Vasanthi Devi /vs/ Vijaya Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch, Mangalore, (Manu/KE/0484/1997 : 1997(2) KarLJ 351, (3) Union of India /vs/ Wing Commander R.R.Hingorani (Retd.) (MANU/SC/0572/1987 : 1987 1 SCC 551) and also considering the above said Bombay High Court judgment, finally, held Section 11 of Pension Act 1871 cannot be attracted and as a wife cannot be treated as creditor as provided under the Pension Act and upheld the order of attachment of pension passed by the Family Court for collection of pension amount.

P Amutha Vs Gunsekaran on 23 Dec 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC here.

Ashokbhai Devsingbhai Chauhan Vs Taraben Ashokbhai Chauhan on 11 Nov 2019

Posted on December 1, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Ahmedabad bench of High Court of Gujarat held that maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as debt as she is not a creditor.

Ashokbhai Devsingbhai Chauhan Vs Taraben Ashokbhai Chauhan on 11 Nov 2019

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC here.

Bhagwant Narnawre Vs Radhika Narnawre on 05 Apr 2019

Posted on December 1, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court held that maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as debt as she is not a creditor.

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel Shri P.K.Mishra for the applicant/husband pointed out Section 11 of the Pensions Act, 1871 and submitted that pensions cannot be attached. The said Section 11 is reproduced herein below:
“11. Exemption of pension from attachment.No pension granted or continued by Government on political considerations, or on account of past
services or present infirmities or as a compassionate allowance, and no money due or to become due on account of any such pension or allowance.
shall be liable to seizure, attachment or sequestration by process of any Court a[***] at the instance of a creditor, for, any demand against the pensioner, or in satisfaction of a decree or order of any such Court.
b[This section applies a[***] also to pensions granted or continued, after the separation of Burma from India, by the Government of Burma.]
[a] The words “in Part A States and Part C States” were omitted by S.2 A.L.O., 1956 (1111956).
[b] Inserted by A.O., 1937 (141937).
[c] That is, on or after 141937.”
The above said Section shows that in civil disputes pensions cannot be attached at the instance of creditors. Commentary relied on by learned counsel for the applicant/husband at serial No.16 under head of attachment shows that, “maintenance allowance granted to wife cannot be considered as debt – She is not a creditor hence exemption under S.11 cannot be granted to husband. (1985)87 Punk LR 682 : (1985) 12 Cri LT 219”. The said commentary itself shows that pensions can be attached to recover amount of maintenance. Hence, the stand taken by learned counsel for the applicant/husband that pensions cannot be attached is not digestible.

Bhagwant Narnawre Vs Radhika Narnawre on 05 Apr 2019

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC here.

Sanjay Bhalkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 13 Jan 2020

Posted on November 27, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Para 15,

This Court is not agreeing with the submission by learned Advocate for petitioners that, the Court cannot control the cross-examination or he has free hand at the time of cross-examining the witness of the prosecution; but then agree to the submission that the cross-examination need not be restricted to what the witness has stated in his examination-in-chief. A balance has to be struck here while issuing directions to the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he has to decide the relevancy of the question which he may get explained from the learned advocate for the accused orally and then allow him to put the said question to the witness. On any count learned Additional Sessions Judge will not be justified in entirely putting the shutter down while disallowing of the questions and asking the defence advocate to restrict himself while cross-examining P.W.18 to the post mortem examination report Exhibit 216, sketch Exhibit 217 and certificate Exhibit 218. It is, therefore, again clarified that neither the learned advocate for the accused has unfettered right to put any question to the witness in the cross-examination but at the same time the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall also not restrict him in putting questions in the cross to the above referred documents only. There might be certain questions which would be beyond those documents and as an expert they are required to be elucidated from him. No straight jacket formula can be laid down as to what should be permitted and what should not be permitted as it depend upon the question that would be put and the relevancy and admissibility of the same and / or of the admissibility will have to be decided at that time. Definitely the learned Additional Sessions Judge is guided by the procedure laid down in Bipin Panchal’s case (Supra), and it is specifically laid down that, it may be advantages for the Appellate Court in future. He has to bear those advantages which have been laid down in para No.15 of the case, in mind while recording the evidence.

Sanjay Bhalkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 13 January 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr on 02 May 2023

Posted on November 26, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that, Sentence can be suspended in appeal only if convict has fair chances of acquittal.

From Paras 33 to 36,

33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the endeavour on the part of the Court, therefore, should be to see as to whether the case presented by the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court can be said to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the above said question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the appeal, which usually take very long for decision and disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. To put it in other words, something which is very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the basis of which, the Court can arrive at a prima facie satisfaction that the conviction may not be sustainable. The Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the CrPC and try to pick up few lacunas or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such would not be a correct approach.
34. In the case on hand, what the High Court has done is something impermissible. High Court has gone into the issues like political rivalry, delay in lodging the FIR, some over-writings in the First Information Report etc. All these aspects, will have to be looked into at the time of the final hearing of the appeals filed by the convicts. Upon cursory scanning of the evidence on record, we are unable to agree with the contentions coming from the learned Senior Counsel for the convicts that, either there is absolutely no case against the convicts or that the evidence against them is so weak and feeble in nature, that, ultimately in all probabilities the proceedings would terminate in their favour. For the very same reason we are unable to accept the contention coming from the convicts through their learned Senior Counsel that, it would be meaningless, improper and unjust to keep them behind the bars for a pretty long time till they are found not to be guilty of the charges.
35. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High Court committed a serious error in suspending the substantive order of sentence of the convicts and their release on bail pending the final disposal of their criminal appeals.
36. In fact, it was expected of the State as the prosecuting agency to challenge the order passed by the High Court, but for some reason or the other, the State thought fit not to do anything further. Ultimately, it is the original first informant (brother of the deceased) who had to come before this Court.

Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr on 02 May 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

CrPC 314 – Oral arguments and memorandum of arguments

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Rajib Kumar Roy Vs Sushmita Saha on 21 Aug 2023

Mahalakshmi and Ors Vs State of Karnataka on 30 Nov 2023

Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (Criminal Appeal against DVC Compensation Order)

P Amutha Vs Gunsekaran on 23 Dec 2022

Ashokbhai Devsingbhai Chauhan Vs Taraben Ashokbhai Chauhan on 11 Nov 2019

Bhagwant Narnawre Vs Radhika Narnawre on 05 Apr 2019

Sanjay Bhalkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 13 Jan 2020

Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr on 02 May 2023