V.Ravi Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 14 December, 2018

Posted on December 15 by ShadesOfKnife

The key contention resolved in this judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court is that “whether the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings being Crime No.54 of 2005 on the grounds that the appellant had withdrawn an earlier complaint without assigning reasons; the transactions being commercial in nature, the ingredients of an offence under the Sections referred to above were absent; and that the remedy of the appellant lay in filing a civil suit.”

From Para 22,

There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute which debars a complainant from making a second complaint on the same allegations, when the first complaint did not lead to conviction, acquittal or discharge.

From Para 23,

when a complaint is dismissed on merits after an inquiry, that a second complaint cannot be made on the same facts. Maybe, as contended by the respondents, the first complaint was withdrawn without assigning any reason. However, that in itself is no ground to quash a second complaint.

V.Ravi Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 14 December, 2018

Sopan @ Dnyandeo Maruti Bawadkar Vs The State of Maharashtra on 05 November, 2012

Posted on December 13 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment delivered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it was held that the accused be given benefit of doubt in the criminal case of 498a IPC, as the depositions of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses is either hearsay or different from what is averred in the original complaint/FIR.

Sopan @ Dnyandeo Maruti Bawadkar Vs The State of Maharashtra on 05 November, 2012

Prakash Babulal Dangi SLP (Multiple Maintenance to be paid)

Posted on December 12 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the case filed by Prakash at Hon’ble Supreme Court, assailing the High Court of Bombay order available here. These are daily orders.

From January 2018:

Prakash Babulal Dangi 10-Jan-2018

From March 2018;

Prakash Babulal Dangi 12-Mar-2018

Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2017

Posted on December 12 by ShadesOfKnife

This is one of the persons trying to figure out why in India, menfolks are allowed to be looted not in just one law but on a myraid of laws.

From Para 11,

“In view thereof, with these clarifications that both the orders; the one passed under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and another passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., are required to be complied, both these Writ Petitions stand disposed off.“

Prakash has filed a SLP with Hon’ble Supreme Court and I could reach upto here on that case.

Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2017

CrPC 423 – Warrant for levy of fine issued by a Court in any territory to which this Code does not extend

Posted on December 11 by ShadesOfKnife

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or in any other law for the time being in force, when an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine by a Criminal Court in any territory to which this Code does not extend and the Court passing the sentence issues a warrant to the Collector of a district in the territories to which this Code extends, authorising him to realise the amount as if it were an arrear of land revenue, such warrant shall be deemed to be a warrant issued under clause (b) of sub- section 1 of section 421 by a Court in the territories to which this Code extends, and the provisions of sub- section (3) of the said section, as to the execution of such warrant shall apply accordingly.

CrPC 422 – Effect of such warrant

Posted on December 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A warrant issued under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 421 by any Court may be executed within the local jurisdiction of such Court, and it shall authorise the attachment and sale of any such property outside such jurisdiction, when it is endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such property is found.

CrPC 421 – Warrant for levy of fine

Posted on December 11 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-

(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;

(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357.

(2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner In which warrants under clause (a) of sub- section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant.

(3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law: Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender.

Shreya Singhal Vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015

Posted on December 11 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has struck down the following laws as being violative of Constitutional rights of Citizens.

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).
Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3)(b) being read down to mean that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are going to be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to such material. Similarly, the Information Technology “Intermediary Guidelines” Rules, 2011 are valid subject to Rule 3 sub-rule (4) being read down in the same manner as indicated in the judgment.
Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is struck down being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2).

Shreya Singhal Vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015

Charles Sobhraj Vs Superintendent, Tihar Jail on 31 August, 1978

Posted on December 11 by ShadesOfKnife

Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj’s petition against use of bar fetters on him is this case, dealt by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Charles Sobhraj Vs Superintendent, Tihar Jail on 31 August, 1978

Citation: 1978 AIR 1514, 1979 SCR (1) 512

Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1518037/

A little bit of this story here and a 2017 update here.

Sunil Batra Etc Vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978

Posted on December 11 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Apex Court judgment, Right of Prisoner against Solitary Confinement was held to be part of Article 21 of Constitution

Sunil Batra Etc Vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978

Citation: 1978 AIR 1675, 1979 SCR (1) 392

Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162242/

Shades Of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

V.Ravi Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 14 December, 2018

Sopan @ Dnyandeo Maruti Bawadkar Vs The State of Maharashtra on 05 November, 2012

Prakash Babulal Dangi SLP (Multiple Maintenance to be paid)

Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2017

CrPC 423 – Warrant for levy of fine issued by a Court in any territory to which this Code does not extend

CrPC 422 – Effect of such warrant

CrPC 421 – Warrant for levy of fine

Shreya Singhal Vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015

Charles Sobhraj Vs Superintendent, Tihar Jail on 31 August, 1978

Sunil Batra Etc Vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978