Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022

Posted on February 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court quashed the FIR against relatives, which was riddled with vague allegations.

From Para 12,
12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimoniallitigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage,now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personalscores against the husband and his relatives.

From Para 18,

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of thehusband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, ifleft unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceedingagainst the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

From Para 21 and 22,

21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022

Posted on February 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court held that when there is a genuine settlement between the parties and they are living happily together, such settlement has to be upheld by High Court and quash the 498A IPC case. This cites B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

From Para 5, (The bozos who file false matrimonial cases do NOT realize what they are unleashing; in this case Armyman lost his job!)

5. The appeal preferred by the appellant, being Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2019, was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Gumla on 30.05.2019. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the High Court, being Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2019. While the said revision petition was pending, two significant events took place. The firsthad been sanction of competent authority for dismissal of the appellant from his military service w.e.f. 14.07.2020for having been convicted of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. In the second relevant event, on 24.11.2020, the appellant and the respondent No. 2 submitted a jointapplication before the High Court, inter alia, stating that with the intervention and advice of family members, common relatives and friends, they had entered intosettlement and resolved all their disputes. It was submitted that upon the appellant approaching his wife forsettlement with assurance to keep her with full honour and dignity, the proposal was accepted by the wife (respondent No. 2) with some conditions, while also undertaking todischarge her matrimonial duties. It was submitted that the parties were residing together with love and affectionand with no dispute between them. It was, therefore jointly prayed that since the dispute was a family dispute that arose due to miscommunication and misunderstanding, now the revision petition may be disposed of in view of the changed circumstances and the family status of the parties. This application was registered as I.A. No. 6052 of 2020.

From Para 7,

7. Having examined the matter in its totality, it appears that the High Court, while disposing of the revision petition with the application moved by the parties, did not pause to consider that maintaining of conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC would not be securing the ends of justice and with such conviction being maintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again land itself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent No. 2 both have reiterated their stand that they have resolved their disputes and are living together while leading a happy conjugal life.

From Para 10,

10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and taking note of the terms of settlement as stated in the application moved before the High Court which include the undertaking of the appellant that he would be nominating the respondent No. 2 as the nominee in his service record; and where the parties are said to be leading a happy conjugal life, we are clearly of the view that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and quashed all the proceedings with annulment of the orders against the appellant. The High Court having not done so, we are inclined to adopt this course so as to secure the ends of justice.

Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

Nakkeeran alias Jeroan Pandy Vs State and Anr on 07 Dec 2021

Posted on February 3, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Nakkeeran alias Jeroan Pandy Vs State and Anr on 07 Dec 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr on 11 Oct 2019

Posted on January 27, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Another false case filer bites the dust…

10. Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner was married with complainant in July 2008. Even after her marriage with the petitioner, complainant was defending the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by her previous husband Asif Farooqi. Within about three years after marriage, her relation with petitioner came to an end in August 2011 as per her own admission recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph No. 14 of his order in Criminal Appeal No. 256/2016. There is yet another judicial finding that complainant had contracted into third marriage with one Asrar Ahmed and given birth to a child. The order also discloses that complainant initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act for short) in April 2012. The learned Sessions Judge has also recorded that it was proved by Ex.R7 that complainant had married for third time and ultimately, dismissed the petition. The Criminal Appeal filed thereon has also been dismissed with costs.
11. Not being satisfied, complainant initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2014. (C.Mis.No.526/2014) seeking maintenance for her and the child. The said petition has also been rejected so far as complainants claim was concerned.
12. Having thus suffered in the hands of complainant, petitioner also filed a private complaint in PCR No.1085/2016 alleging inter alia that complainant had suppressed her earlier marriage with Asif Ali Farooqi and when questioned about the same, she has filed the instant false complaint. Thereafter, she has married for the third time. With the said allegations, petitioner sought action against complainant and three others for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120A, 120B, 107, 108, 494, 496 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, FIR No.149/2016 has been registered on 11th August 2016 in Narasimharaja Police Station, Mysuru City. Records further disclose that complainant and other accused unsuccessfully challenged the said FIR before this Court in Criminal Petition No.1182/2017.
13. Petitioners application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge by recording that presence of accused as on the date of incident and whether marriage is void, cannot be considered at the stage of discharge.
14. A conspectus of facts narrated by the petitioner and the undisputed facts which can be gathered from the records lead to an irresistible inference that though complaint is filed alleging commission of offence under Section 498A IPC, it is, in fact the petitioner who has suffered an untold misery in the hands of the complainant.
15. It cannot be gainsaid that disclosure of a previous subsisting marriage causes immense mental pain and agony to a husband.
16. Complainant has, though unsuccessfully, driven the petitioner to various Courts unabatedly. It started with complainant initiating proceedings under the provisions of DV Act followed by proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Judicial findings have been recorded by the learned Trial Magistrates in both proceedings with regard to complainants conduct. Learned Magistrate adjudicating proceedings under DV Act has recorded that as per Ex.R7, complainants marriage with her third husband was proved. This finding has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal.
17. Suffice to note that records unequivocally disclose that complainant was respondent in a matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights initiated by her first husband when she got married with the petitioner. She has admitted this fact in proceedings before the learned Magistrate in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
18. This is a classic case in which a complainant by initiating criminal proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Section 498A IPC against the petitioner has abused the said provisions.
****
20. It is relevant to note that though the complaint contains the allegations recorded above, there is interpolation with regard to the date 03.08.2011, on which date she was allegedly confined in a room and attempt was made to kill her by pouring kerosene. Further, it is stated that Faizal made an attempt to hang her to a Ceiling fan. In the following sentence, it is stated that Faizal made her fall from a motor cycle and tried to kill her. The two allegations that Faizal attempted to hang the complainant and thereafter made her fall from the motor cycle contradict each other. If Faizal had really attempted to hang her, how did she escape from his clutches? No details are forthcoming in this behalf. However, even if it is assumed that the said allegation were true, it is not understandable why she sat on Faisals motor cycle.
22. Thus, the Complaint is full of unbelievable and self contradicting allegations. The first allegation of demand for Rs.3,00,000/- is said to have been made jointly by petitioner and his family members. The second allegation regarding demand of money to purchase a car is alleged jointly against petitioner and his sisters. Thus all allegations in the complaint are omnibus in nature and in the least, made jointly with other accused and there are no specific against the petitioner.
23. After investigation, admittedly police have not filed charge-sheet against accused No.2 to 6 namely Shahjahan Begum, Afzal Ahmed Khan, Parveez Ahamed, Anjum Nazeer and Siddique. Neither the prosecution nor the complainant have placed any other material which may suggest commission of any of the alleged criminal act/s by the petitioner. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that allegations against petitioner are designed to harass him.

Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr on 11 Oct 2019

Citations: [2019 SCC ONLINE KAR 3113], [2020 ILR KAR 130], [2020 KCCR 1 236], [2020 AIC 205 770], [2020 AIR KANT R 1 306], [2020 KANT LJ 1 323]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ded72464a932629f01c7297

Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022

Posted on January 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Another false case victim was stopped from traveling abroad for his employment, but Supreme Court cut the tail of the false complainant and allowed his to travel to US of A.

The allegations in the complaint against the Appellant prima facie do not disclose, against the Appellant, any offence under Section 498A of the IPC, which contemplates cruelty, that is willful conduct of such a nature, as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or health (whether physical or mental) of the woman.
It is interesting to note that in the complaint, the complainant has given the address of her husband in U.S.A. in addition to his permanent address at Faridabad. The complainant has, for reasons known to herself, not made any reference in her complaint to the fact that the Appellant is a resident of Texas, where he is working. The complaint gives the impression that the Appellant is a resident of Faridabad.
From the complaint itself, it is patently clear that the Appellant does not reside in the same premises as his brother, being the husband of the complainant. The averments in the pleadings in the Courts below read with the complaint show that they do not even live in the same place. The Appellant works in Texas, U.S.A., whereas his brother lives and works in North Carolina.
The complainant has not given any particulars of the jewellery that had allegedly been taken by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. There is not a whisper of whether any jewellery is lying with the Appellant. It is not even alleged that the Appellant forcibly took away or misappropriated the complainant’s jewellery or refused to return the same in spite of request. Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.
There is not even any allegation against the Appellant of any demand or threat or torture for dowry or property. Failure to control an adult brother, living independently, or giving advice to the complainant to adjust to avoid vindictive retaliation from the Accused No. 1 cannot constitute cruelty on the part of the Appellant within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.
There are no specific allegations against the Appellant of misrepresentation or concealment. There is not a whisper of the Appellant’s role in the marriage negotiations that took place in India. As observed above, the Appellant who is the elder brother-in-law of the complainant, resides in U.S.A. There is only a general omnibus allegation that all the accused ruined the life of the complainant by misrepresentation, concealment, etc. On the face of the averments in the complaint, the complainant’s husband made certain misrepresentations to her. The Appellant is not liable for the acts of cruelty, or any other wrongful and/or criminal acts on the part of his parents or brother.
There is nothing specific against the Appellant except the vague allegation that the Appellant and his mother, that is the complainant’s mother-in-law kept her jewellery. The only other allegation is that the Appellant had not done anything, when the complainant had spoken to the Appellant about his brother’s conduct and behaviour, he had told the complainant to remain quiet as Nitin could be a very bad enemy. In any event a deed of compromise has now been executed between the complainant and her husband being the Accused No. 1. A copy of the compromise settlement has been enclosed. The Appellant is not party to the settlement.
Having regard to the nature of the allegations, it is not understood how and why the Appellant should have been detained in India. In our considered opinion, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, erred in directing this Appellant not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

The apprehension that the husband of the complainant (Accused No.1) who had been working in the U.S.A. might leave the country cannot be ground to deny the Appellant’s prayer to go back to the U.S.A. to resume his duties in a Company in which he has been working for about 9/10 years. The High Court has also not considered the allegations against the Appellant. There is not even any prima facie finding with regard to liability, if any, of the Appellant to the complainant. There are no specific allegations against the Appellant.

Final nail in the coffin…

The instant application was strongly opposed by the State. This Court finds no merit in the contentions of the State. Ex facie, the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence under the provisions of the IPC referred to in the FIR. Ms. Monika Gusain stated that charge-sheet has been filed. She has not been able to point out what is the offence so far as this Appellant being the brother of Nitin Sharma, living in the USA is concerned. The repetitive allegations in the complaint are directed against the husband of the complainant, Nitin Sharma (Accused No.1) and his parents, particularly, his mother being the Accused No.2.

Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/personal-liberty-supreme-court-allows-brother-in-law-accused-in-section-498a-ipc-case-to-travel-abroad-189551

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/giving-advice-avoid-vindictive-retaliation-husband-not-cruelty-498a-ipc-supreme-court

https://lawtrend.in/498-a-ipc-advising-woman-to-adjust-with-husband-taking-jewellery-for-safe-custody-is-not-cruelty-rules-sc/

Life Cycles of Various case types

Posted on December 20, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are a collection of life cycles of various cases

Life Cycle of a Section 498A IPC Dowry Harassment case here.
Life Cycle of a Domestic Violence case under PWDV Act 2005 here.
Life Cycle of a Maintenance Case under section 125 CrPC here.
Life Cycle of a Divorce case here.
Life Cycle of a RCR (Restitution of Conjugal Rights; Sec 9 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955) case here.
Life Cycle of a Child Custody/Visitation case here.
Life Cycle of a Defamation case here.
Life Cycle of a Perjury case here.
Life Cycle of a Quash/Discharge case here.
Life Cycle of a Criminal Writ Petition case at a High Court here.
Life Cycle of a Transfer Petition case here.
Life Cycle of a Contempt of Court case here.
Life Cycle of a Public Interest Litigation (Just a Writ Petition only, but with PIL Rules of a High Court) case at a High Court here.

A lot of helpful tips while dealing with above case types, either from Police here and from judiciary here.

MASTER SITEMAP is available here.

Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021

Posted on December 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that,

At the same time, it cannot be ignored that acceptance of the CD in question shall amount to a clear breach of fundamental right of the petitioner-wife i.e., her right to privacy, as has been upheld in various judicial pronouncements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India, (1997)1 SCC 301, has observed as under:-
“18. The right to privacy- by itself- has not been identified under the Constitution. As a concept it may be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given case would depend on the facts of the said case. But the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as “right to privacy”. Conversations on the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character. Telephone-conversation is a part of modern man’s life. It is considered so important that more and more people are carrying mobile telephone instruments in their pockets. Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man’s private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone-conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.”
Thus, recording of telephonic conversation of the wife without her knowledge, is a clear cut infringement of her privacy.

Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195720592/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/635a65aef364724175a72b6e

This decision is appealed at Apex Court here and it was allowed also.

Lifecycle Stages of a Maintenance Case under Section 125 CrPC

Posted on December 10, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Listed below are a reasonably laid out sequence of events in a Maintenance Case filed under Section 125 of CrPC. Also, various other Maintenance cases under CrPC and remedies are presented at the end of this article.

Other Life Cycles: 498A IPC Case Lifecycle || DV Case Lifecycle. Index of all life cycles is here. Looking for Maintenance case-laws? go here!

Initial signs of facing a Maintenance case u/s 125 CrPC

This is the 3rd false case after the 498A IPC and Domestic Violence cases, that you may face. This case completes what is colloquially called as Full package. First a criminal case is filed so that Police power can be misused and when that does not break you, Civil reliefs are prayed for through Domestic Violence case. When even that plot fails and you don’t budge, the final attack comes in the form of this maintenance case, in which they think there is a sure shot success in extracting money from you. How comical bozos these are… hahahaha

The COMPLAINT

The petition/application u/s 125 CrPC containing the facts of the case, stating the circumstances under which the wife (as per the law, parents or children can also seek maintenance in cases of neglect) seeks to claim maintenance, all personal relevant details is filed before the Family Court (or jurisdictional Junior Civil Judge Court if Family Court is not available).

Issue of Notice to the Respondent

The Family Court scrutinizes the petition and issues notice to the husband against whom the petition has been filed by the wife. Petitioner copy may be sent along with notice.

Reference to Reconciliation/Mediation

The parties may be directed to appear before the court for reconciliation or may be directed to mediation and efforts are made to reconcile them first in an effort to avoid litigation.

Reconciliation Proceedings

If the reconciliation proceedings after being conducted by the family court are successful, then the matter stands settled. If they lead to failure, then the Court proceeds with the petition to decide it on merits.

Written Statement (of objections)

After giving a copy of the petition to the Respondent, the Family Court directs the opposite part to file a reply/WS/Counter to the maintenance petition stating the facts which he/she accepts or denies. Both the parties are also asked to file their detailed Income Affidavit (as per Rajnesh Vs Neha Case) so that it can infer the capabilities and liabilities. Petitioner must be given a copy of reply.

Rejoinder/Rebuttal

The petitioner is directed to file a rejoinder/rebuttal to reply filed by the opposite party. The application for interim maintenance, if any filed by the petitioner, is decided by the court at this stage of the case, based on pleadings and affidavits alone. No evidence will be entertained to decide Interim applications. Respondent must be given a copy.

Framing of Issues

The court then proceeds further and frames issues for adjudication and the matter is posted for evidence of the parties.

Petitioner’s Evidence

The petitioner is directed to lead its evidence by way of filing the relevant documents, papers, etc. and by summoning all its witnesses. List of witnesses must be given to other side before examining the first prosecution witness. Once prosecution witness examination completes by way of Chief Examination Affidavit, the witness will face Cross Examination from the Counsel of opposite party and the deposition of each witness is recorded, up on oath.

Respondent’s Evidence

The respondent is directed to lead its evidence by way of filing the relevant documents, papers, etc. and by summoning all its witnesses. This is optional and the Respondent may forego examination/ evidence, if they think that the prosecution failed to support their case.

FINAL ARGUMENTS –

The final arguments in the matter are held and the matter is decided by the court. Written Arguments may also be submitted to the Family Court, as a best practice.

Order/Judgment

The Court finally passes the final order/judgement where it may either dismiss the petition or allow the petition and direct the other party to pay an amount as directed by the court monthly.

Infographic

Key Contributor:

Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)

Cell:

Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021

Posted on December 1, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

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

From Para 6, Ground-1

6. On the other hand, respondent No.2 submits that petitioner cannot raise a contention that 16 other complaints were lodged by respondent No.2 that she is habituated in lodging complaints against public servants and others, as it is her personal issue and there is no illegality in the order under revision. She submits that while exercising power under Section 156(3) Courts can forward complaint to Police without issuing notice to the accused. Hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned and this revision is liable to be dismissed. Relied on Priyanka Srivastava and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
7. In the case on hand, the Magistrate has only directed the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and directed the police to file report by17.06.2021. The Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently held that when the Magistrate applies his mind and order for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C, he could not be said to have taken cognizance of offence and by doing so, it will be conducive to justice and save the valuable time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into a matter which was the primary duty of the police to investigate. In this case, the Magistrate has not taken cognizance, but only referred the matter to the police for investigation. At this juncture, as argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that sanction should have been obtained as the petitioner is a public servant has no legs to stand.

From Para 8, Ground-2

8. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C and directed to submit a report which is an interlocutory order and revision against such an order under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C is barred under law. However, after completion of investigation, if Police come to the conclusion that complaint is filed with false allegations, they can as well close the case by referring it as false. The revision is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of its maintainability as it isnot final order and it falls under interlocutory order, which cannot be challenged.

Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021

Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017

Posted on December 1, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single-judge bench of Patna High Court held as follows,

It appears from the averment made in the instant petition that at the relevant time the petitioner was Managing Director and whole time Director of the Company and the complaint was filed by Registrar of the Company under section 58(A) of the Companies Act read with Rule-3 (i)(a) proviso (i) Rule 10 of the Company within (Acceptance and Deposits) Rules, 1975. The reason for rejection of the application under Section 205 Cr. P.C. as appears from Annexure-2 that the offence is non-bailable. The court below committed error of jurisdiction in ignoring the fact that in the instant case after taking cognizance, summon was issued by the court below and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Harsh Das case reported in 1998(1) PLJR 502, the court was required to consider the application of the petitioner on its own merits without being prejudiced by the facts that the offence as alleged is non-bailable. In similar circumstances, a Bench of this Court in Cr. Revision Nos. 543, 454 of 2006 in the case of Manish Giri vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (1) PLJR has discussed the scope under section 205 Cr.P.C. and noticing the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ram Harsh Das (supra) and various other judgments held out that power to refuse permission under section 205 Cr.P.C. should not be used as a substitute for ultimate punishment which could be awarded. The court decided the matter but also in the last paragraph issued direction to the Registrar to circulate the copy of the order for to all the Civil Courts in the State of Bihar for guidelines of Judicial Officers in future.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment which was circulated to all the Civil Courts, the court below rejected the application of the petitioner filed to dispense with personal appearance vide order dated 9.12.2010 and even the revisional court in Cr. Revision No. 97 of 2011 has failed to exercise judicial discretion for the ends of justice and as such the petitioner was constraint to approach this Court by way of filing the instant application.

Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017

Casemine version:

Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017 (CM ver)

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022

Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022

Nakkeeran alias Jeroan Pandy Vs State and Anr on 07 Dec 2021

Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr on 11 Oct 2019

Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022

Life Cycles of Various case types

Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021

Lifecycle Stages of a Maintenance Case under Section 125 CrPC

Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)

Cell:

Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021

Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017