Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990

Posted on June 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Calcutta High Court held as follows,

From Paras 5 and 6,

5. So, as per the definition, dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before or after the carriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Sri Mukherjee has laid emphasis on the words ‘given’ or ‘agreed to be given’ at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Judged in terms of the definition, the learned counsel has submitted that in the case in hand, neither party to the marriage nor their relations had ever given or agreed to give any property or valuable security to the other party at or before or after the marriage, and, therefore, the learned counsel argues, s. 4 of the Act is not attracted to the case in hand.
6. I find much substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The complaint petition does not disclose that the complainant had given any property or valuable security or that he had agreed to give such things to the accused petitioner No. 1, either at or before or after the marriage between Usha Shaw and petitioner No. 1 or to his parents or other relations. Although in common parlance we very often use the term “dowry demand” in the cases where the husband or his relations demand valuable security from the parents and other relations of the wife after the marriage, yet, in my opinion this will not amount to demand for dowry under the Act in view of the definition of dowry contained in s. 2 the Act. Demand for dowry under the Act and in the legal sense will mean the demand for dowry only when it refers to property or valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage. The alleged offence as made out in the complaint petition may attract the penal provisions as contained in s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Parliament in its wisdom appended the explanation as to what “cruelty” means and has constructed sub clause (b) of s. 498A in the following words, “Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand”. In my opinion, if the cases of this nature are to be brought within the ambit of s. 4 of the Act, then the word ‘dowry’ under s. 2 of the Act shall have to be redefined in the light of sub-clause (b) under s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The term “extortion demand” popularised by the media may also find a place in the definition of dowry.

Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990 (CM Ver)

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/946303/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56095f9ee4b01497112cab8b

Artificial Intelligence Tools

Posted on June 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

https://www.tryleap.ai/

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Posted on June 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

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

From Para 2,

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners finds fault with the impugned order contending that in matters like this, the fact that the parties are residing under the same roof, pales into insignificance except for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction. The fact that the spouses are residing in the same premises could not have been a ground for making the order of the kind. Such a flawed reasoning bewilders the Court, to say the least. Such a fact arguably may show the good culture of the spouses who are otherwise at loggerheads. The reason assigned by the Court below for denying relief to the parties constitutes as error of great magnitude apparent on the face of the record.
In view of the above, this Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned Order; matter is remitted to the portals of the learned Judge of the Court below, requesting him to pass a judgment and decree in terms of the Compromise Petition and the report of the Mediator. This is to be done at the earliest.

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Posted on June 13, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows,

From Paras 102 and 103,

102. In view of the law as laid down by this Court in Marupudi Dhana Koteswara Rao (supra) that the authorities can seek NOC in case of renewal of passport which is implicit in Rule-5, with which view I am also in agreement that the renewal of passport is also governed by the provisions of the Passport Act, including Sections 5, 6 and the Rules, 1980, the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioners to the contrary based on the view taken by the other High Courts is not acceptable and is rejected.
103. To sum up, this Court holds that;
(i) “Issue‟ of passport in Section 5 of the Passports Act includes “renewal‟ of the passport as well;
(ii) While considering the renewal of the passport, the passport authority would be within its jurisdiction and authority to refuse renewal, on the same grounds as in the cases of issuance of the passport for “the first time‟, provided by Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act. In other words, Section 6 (2) of the Passport Act applies to renewal of the passport, as well;
(iii) In the cases for renewal, to which Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act is attracted, i.e., where the applicant is facing criminal trial in a criminal Court in India, renewal of the passport shall be refused, subject to the fulfillment of the condition under the notification of the Central Government, dated 25.08.1993, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Passports Act, upon which such applicant shall stand exempted from the operation of the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 6;
(iv) In a case where clause (f) of Section 6 (2) is attracted, the holder of the passport, for its renewal, will have to produce an order from the Court concerned, where the proceedings against him are pending trial in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by him, permitting him to depart from India;
(v) The notification dated 25.08.1993 applies to the citizen applicants for renewal of the passport even if already departed from India under the passport of which renewal is sought.
(vi) On production of an order, from the concerned Court, as referred in the notification, the renewal of the passport shall not be refused only on the ground of Section 6 (2) (f), i.e., mere pendency of the criminal case for trial;
(vii) Condition (d) of the notification dated 25.08.1993 is an additional requirement and is not in substitution of the requirement from those citizen/applicants who have to produce an order of the Court concerned, where the criminal case is pending, permitting him to depart from India.

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Sana Nitish Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana on 26 April 2023

Posted on June 6, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court granted compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for effecting illegal arrest.

From Para 7,

7. There cannot be any iota of doubt that a person who is arrested by the police is looked down by the society. It creates a scar on his personality and character. Arrest in normal course and in compliance with the provision of law, even if it causes injury to the person cannot give rise to cause of action to award damages. However, when there is violation of law and the person is subjected to humiliation and insult, action of the police authorities will have to be condemned in strict terms and consequently compensation in a given case needs to be awarded. The petitioner is well qualified and is working for a reputed company. It is contended that illegal arrest of the petitioner created mental agony, loss of reputation and created permanent scar on his life. Keeping in view the educational qualification and family background of the petitioner, it cannot be said that such statement of loss of reputation, mental agony etc., is an exaggeration. The social status in India varies from person to person. The factors like family background, educational qualification, economical status, profession etc., can be considered for grant of compensation to the victims. Right to live with dignity and self-respect is one of the facets guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No person shall be deprived of his right to live save by due process of law. The unimpeachable record placed before this Court proves that respondent Nos.6 and 7 acted in derogation of law. The notice under Section 41-A(1) of Cr.P.C. was issued without mentioning date and time and without giving sufficient time to the petitioner for compliance, straight away he was produced before the learned Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody. For such lapses, respondent Nos.6 and 7 were inflicted with punishment in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. Thus, there is a clear violation of mandate of law in Arnesh Kumar’s case (Supra 1) and by doing so, respondent Nos.6 and 7 have infringed upon the fundamental life of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

From Para 8,

8. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 and 7 submitted that respondent No.7 is a young officer having long service and if any further punishment is inflicted by this Court, it would shatter his career opportunities. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rs.5.00 lakh compensation may be awarded to the petitioner for loss of his reputation in the society on account of his illegal arrest by the erring police officials. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) is awarded to the petitioner as compensation for the lapses committed by respondent Nos.6 and 7. Respondent No.1 shall pay the said amount to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.1 is at liberty to recover the compensation amount i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each from respondent Nos.6 and 7. So far as the other reliefs are concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief as respondent Nos.6 and 7 were already subjected to disciplinary proceedings and punishment was imposed against them.

Sana Nitish Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana on 26 April 2023

Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Ors on 18 May 2023

Posted on May 30, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed this reportable judgment relying on a earlier decision.

From Para 11,

11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of chargesheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court.
12. The law on the point has been summarised in a recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap2.

Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Ors on 18 May 2023

Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs State of A.P and Ors on 15 Jul 1999

Posted on May 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,

From Paras 10 and 11,

10. Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Even after the court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 1791. The only rider provided by the aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation.
11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the court with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard. As the law does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an obligation.

Citations: [1999 ACR SC 2 1580], [1999 AIR SC 2332], [1999 ALD CRI 2 340], [1999 CRI LJ 3661], [1999 CRIMES SC 3 117], [1999 JT SC 4 537], [1999 OLR 2 344], [1999 PLJR 9 83], [1999 SCALE 4 86], [1999 SCC 5 740], [1999 SCR 3 870], [1999 UJ 2 1270], [1999 SCC CRI 1047], [1999 KERLJ 2 272], [1999 CRLJ 0 366], [11999 SCC CR 0 1047], [1999 AIR SC 0 2429], [1999 SUPREME 6 47], [1999 CRLJ 0 1661], [1999 BOMCR SC 4 248], [1999 AIR SCW 0 2429], [1999 CRLJ SC 3661], [1999 JT 4 537], [1999 UJ SC 2 1270], [1999 CRLJ 3661], [1999 OLR SC 2 344], [1999 AIR SCW 2429], [1999 SCC CR 1047], [1999 CRILJ 3661]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1308855/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad59e4b0149711411248

Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023

Posted on May 16, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of MP High Court at Jabalpur held as follows,

From Paras 5 and 6, (What is an interlocutory order?)

5. Now question remains for consideration is whether the order of interim maintenance passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order? Consequently, whether criminal revision petition is lie against that order?
6. Term ‘Interlocutory Order’ has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.C. Shukla vs State, reported in AIR 1980 (SC) 962, has given following observation in para No.23 regarding the nature of interlocutory order:-
“Thus, summing up the natural and logical meaning of an interlocutory order, the conclusion is inescapable that an order which does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the rights of the parties is only an interlocutory order. In other words, in the ordinary sense of the term, an interlocutory order is one which only decides a particular aspect or a particular issue or a particular matter in a proceeding, suit or trial but which does not however conclude the trial at all. This would be the result if the term interlocutory order is interpreted in its natural and logical sense without having to resort to Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute. ‘That is to say, if we construe interlocutory order in ordinary parlance it would indicate the attributes, mentioned above, and this is what the term interlocutory order means when used in s. 11(1) of the Act.”

From Para 9,

9. In the case of Sumerchand vs Sandhuran Rani and Others, reported in 1987 Cr.L.J. 1396, Sunil Kumar Sabharwal vs Neelam Sabharwal, reported in 1991 Cr.L.J. 2056 High Court of Haryana and a order dated 15.11.18 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Ashu Dhiman vs Smt Jyoti Dhiman, Cr. Misc. Application (C-482) No.434/2018, it has been held that an order passed for interim maintenance under provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C is not an interlocutory order, hence, criminal revision petition is maintainable against such order.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury on 19 Apr 2017

Posted on May 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 16,

16. The review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC came to be filed by the respondent-wife pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court when the earlier order dated 02.02.2015 awarding a maintenance of Rs.16,000/- to the respondent-wife as well as to her minor son was under challenge before this Court. As pointed out by the High Court, in February 2015, the appellant-husband was getting a net salary of Rs.63,842/- after deduction of Rs.24,000/- on account of GPF and Rs.12,000/- towards income-tax. In February, 2016, the net salary of the appellant is stated to be Rs.95,527/-. Following Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar vs. Raj Kumari and Anr. (1970) 3 SCC 129, in this case, it was held that 25% of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the respondent-wife. The amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance. Maintenance is always dependant on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. Since in February, 2016, the net salary of the husband was Rs. 95,000/- per month, the High Court was justified in enhancing the maintenance amount. However, since the appellant has also got married second time and has a child from the second marriage, in the interest of justice, we think it proper to reduce the amount of maintenance of Rs.23,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife and son.

Download judgment here.

Citations: [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 440], [2017 AIR SC 2383], [2017 CDR SC 2 257], [2017 ALLMR 5 426], [2017 ALR 123 287], [2017 AWC SC 3 2259], [2017 ALT 3 51], [2017 ALD 4 176], [2017 BOMCR 3 765], [2017 CHN SC 2 212], [2017 CTC 3 209], [2017 CLT 124 555], [2017 DMCSC 2 1], [2017 ILR KER 2 335], [2017 JLJR 3 23], [2017 JKJ SC 2 1], [2017 JCC 3 1953], [2017 KHC 2 606], [2017 KLJ 2 614], [2017 OLR 1 946], [2017 PLJR 3 72], [2017 RLW SC 2 1154], [2017 RCR CIVIL 2 1033], [2017 SCALE 5 55], [2017 WLN SC 3 70], [2017 SCC 14 200], [2018 SCC CIV 1 216]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/87785076/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58f7912e53bee77d50c515fe

Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023

Posted on May 6, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A Constitution Bench of 5 judges held as follows,

From Para 40,

40. In view of our findings recorded above, we are of the opinion that the decisions of this Court in Manish Goel (supra), Neelam Kumar (supra), Darshan Gupta (supra), Hitesh Bhatnagar (supra), Savitri Pandey (supra) and others have to be read down in the context of the power of this Court given by the Constitution of India to do ‘complete justice’ in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India. In consonance with our findings on the scope and ambit of the power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, in the context of matrimonial disputes arising out of the Hindu Marriage Act, we hold that the power to do‘complete justice’ is not fettered by the doctrine of fault and blame, applicable to petitions for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. As held above, this Court’s power to dissolve marriage on settlement by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent, as well as quash and set aside other proceedings, including criminal proceedings, remains and can be exercised.

From Para 41,

41. Lastly, we must express our opinion on whether a party can directly canvass before this Court the ground of irretrievable breakdown by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. In Poonam v. Sumit Tanwar65, a two judges’ bench of this Court has rightly held that any such attempt must be spurned and not accepted, as the parties should not be permitted to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, or for that matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, and seek divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The reason is that the remedy of a person aggrieved by the decision of the competent judicial forum is to approach the superior tribunal/forum for redressal of his/her grievance. The parties should not be permitted to circumvent the procedure by resorting to the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be. Secondly, and more importantly, relief under Article 32 of the Constitution of India can be sought to enforce the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India, and on the proof of infringement thereof. Judicial orders passed by the court in, or in relation to, the proceedings pending before it, are not amenable to correction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.66 Therefore, a party cannot file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and seek relief of dissolution of marriage directly from this Court. While we accept the said view, we also clarify that reference in Poonam (supra) to Manish Goel (supra) and the observation that it is questionable whether the period of six months for moving the second motion can be waived has not been approved by us.

Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023

Citations: [2023 SCC OnLine SC 544]

Other Sources:

Earlier Matter is here.

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990

Artificial Intelligence Tools

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Kadar Valli Shaik Vs Union of India and 3 Ors on 07 Mar 2023

Sana Nitish Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana on 26 April 2023

Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Ors on 18 May 2023

Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs State of A.P and Ors on 15 Jul 1999

Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023

Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury on 19 Apr 2017

Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023