Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 23 Feb 2007

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji highlighted as follows:

From Paras 3 and 4,

3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as per allegations dowry demand was made even before marriage i.e. at the time of engagement and an AC was demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father had assured that AC would be given at the time of marriage. However, she told her father “You have given car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if they demand a flat tomorrow?”. Despite her this conversation with her father and despite her knowing that dowry demand had already been made, she married in the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well-educated lady and was an engineer and her brother was in police. In fact, these kinds of allegations made after breakdown of the marriage show the mentality of the complainant. I consider where these kinds of allegations are made, the police should simultaneously register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, the Act) against the parents of the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite demand of dowry. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a woman of grown up age and well educated gets married to a person despite dowry demand, she and her family becomes accomplice in the crime under Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:

2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-
(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.
(2)The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.
(3)Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule(1) or Sub-rule(2)-
(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;
(b) shall be in writing;
(c) shall contain:-
(i) a brief description of each present;
(ii) the approximate value of the present;
(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and
(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such relationship.
(d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.

5. The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in.

Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 21 Feb 2007

Posted on August 11 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji highlighted the misuse of 498A IPC by some unscrupulous women.

From Para 7,

7. Now-a-days, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations against every member of the family of the husband, involving everybody under Section 498A and 406 of the IPC by making one or the other allegations. Hence, it has become very necessary for the Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute the offence and meet the requirements of law at least prima facie. The learned ASJ scrutinized the entire FIR and the statement of complainant and thereafter observed that no case was made out against these two minor girls. I have also gone through the record and find that except above allegations made by the complainant, no other role was assigned to these two minor girls (respondents).

Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 21 Feb 2007

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

Posted on August 10 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows:

4. When there is a specific direction from this Court to dispose of the matter time bound, it is not known how the case is still pending. However, considering the request of the petitioner, the criminal petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
1) The Court of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is directed to take up the case in D.V.C.No.61 of 2019 on day-to-day basis and to dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2) In case, the case is not disposed of within one month, the Court of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is directed to submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) narrating the reasons as to why the case could not be disposed of.
3) The above direction is issued not only basing on the merits of the case, but also as Section 12(5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, clearly mandates that the case has to be disposed of within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of its first hearing.

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Aug 2022

Posted on August 10 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held that Regional Passport Officer can be directed by Court to issue Police clearance certificate.

From Paras 4 and 5,

4. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the service of issuing a police clearance certificate is a voluntary service being given for the benefit of Indian citizens and there is no underlying duty cast on the 2nd respondent, by virtue of any provision of law or Judgment of the Court, to issue such police clearance certificates. He would further submit that a Writ of Mandamus cannot lie against the 2nd respondent and there is no legal duty cast on the 2nd respondent to undertake such activities. Further, the 2nd respondent cannot give a clean chit to the petitioner and would have to incorporate the details of the aforesaid crime in any certificate that can be issued to the petitioner.
5. In view of the fact that the 2nd respondent has been issuing such certificates to citizens staying abroad, the 2nd respondent cannot take the stand that since it is a voluntary service, there cannot be any direction to the 2nd respondent to issue or not to issue such certificates.

Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Aug 2022

XXX Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 05 July 2022

Posted on August 8 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Kerala High Court held as follows:

From Para 13,

13. I do not propose to go into the details of this case any further because, through the various interim orders already issued, the petitioner has
obtained relief – including DNA analysis of the foetus she was carrying, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.Dheeraj Rajan, affirmed that no specific orders are now required and that a Final Report has also been filed by the Police.

From Para 14, (Invitation for views)

14. However, the trauma, which the petitioner has experienced and which may be forced upon victims in future, makes this Court to think in terms of having a Protocol for the purpose of empowerment of the victim – being gender neutral – to approach the law enforcement agencies and obtain succor and support in the initial stages of extreme fear, terror and despondency faced.
15. With the afore intent, I threw open discussions in this matter to the Bar, calling for suggestions from anyone who is interested in addressing this Court; and am glad that I did so because, I have had the benefit of the views and inputs from very eminent lawyers, both senior and junior.
16. The principles and imperative requirements of ‘Victim Protection Protocols’ are inexorably attracted whenever a sexual assault occurs; and I, therefore, requested the learned counsel appearing for the parties and who are assisting this Court upon the aforementioned invitation, as also the
learned Special Government Pleader – Smt.Ambika Devi, to offer their suggestions.

From Para 32, (Protocols follow)

Consequently, I order this writ petition, directing that protocols below are scrupulously followed in the case of a complaint regarding sexual attack or child abuse without exception:
a) The Government will, in addition to the steps taken earlier by it, continually publicize the Toll Free Number ‘112’ as an Emergency Support System to be known to every citizen, so that the victim of a child abuse or sexual assault can access it whenever required.
b) Every victim of sexual assault and child abuse must be encouraged to access the afore Toll Free Number or the Police Control Room Number ‘100’; and on such intimation being received, it will be fed into a digital system, to be then brought to the notice of the jurisdictional Police Station, for necessary steps under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. In this regard, I record the undertaking of the State that a system as afore has already been put in place under the Emergency Response Support System (ERSS) Project.
c) This Court records the further undertaking of the State that calls made to the aforementioned Toll Free Numbers of ‘112’ and ‘100’ will only be
attended and responded to by well sensitized and trained personnel, who will make sure that the victim is given sufficient support from the inception, until the time she/he requires it thereafter.
d) On intimation of a sexual assault or child abuse being received by the afore Toll Free Numbers, the Police Control Room or the jurisdictional Police Station, will take immediate steps to contact the victim either personally or through phone without, however, summoning him/her to the Police Station.
e) While taking the statement of the victim, mandatory provisions of Section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C., namely, that same be recorded at his/her
residence or in the place of his/her choice and as far as practical, by a Police Officer in the presence of his/her parents/guardian/near relatives or social worker, shall be scrupulously complied with.
f) On the FIR being so registered, the investigating officer will forthwith assign a ‘Victim Liaison Officer’ in terms of the applicable circulars issued by the State Police Chief, who shall then contact the victim immediately so that he/she will feel safe and protected, being sure of such support.
(g) Simultaneous to the registration of the FIR or at the time when the Victim Liaison Officer is so assigned, the investigating Officer will disclose to the victim the numbers of the ‘One Stop Crisis Centre’ and that of the ‘VRC’, so that they can involve themselves and ensure that the victim suffers no further traumatisation and obtains the best psychological support and succor which, indubitably, is the sine qua non for the reparatory process of the victim’s psychological trauma.
(h) The Authorities concerned will ensure that the victim has constant access to the Victim Liaison Officer and to the ‘One Stop Crisis Centre/VRC’, as the case may be; and that this is made available 24 hours a day, at any time the victim requires it during his/her most difficult times.
(i) The ‘One Stop Crisis Centre’/’VRC’ is directed to offer not merely psychological assistance to the victim, but also legal support as may be required and will actively promote his/her return to normal life, through every possible facilitation as may be warranted. This shall continue as long as the victim requires, or until such time as the trial is completed.
(j) It is further ordered that the victim Liaison Officer (VLO), as also the ‘One Stop Crisis Centre’/’VRC’, shall make available every assistance necessary to the victim for the processes under Section 164A of the Cr.PC, and must actively guide and instruct, advising her/him of her/his rights under it, thus being able to exercise it diligently and with confidence.
The afore are, of course, not exhaustive; and I, therefore, leave liberty to any person, including the learned counsel for the parties or the members of the Bar, to seek any clarification from this Court, if so found necessary; in which event, more effective protocols for victim protection can certainly be thought of and incorporated.

XXX Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 05 July 2022

CPIO SCI Vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 13 Nov 2019

Posted on July 28 by ShadesOfKnife

A constitution bench of Apex Court held as follows:

From Para 59,

59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of
medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.

CPIO SCI Vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 13 Nov 2019 Para 59

Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1459]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101637927/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5dcc51443321bc4f5eaf25b5

Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 Aug 2013

Posted on July 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows,

From Para 15,

15. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See: State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn.
Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107; State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499).
16. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Sons vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207; Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425; Union of India vs. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 have held that though Article 226 confers a very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted.
(See: N.T. Veluswami Thevar vs. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422; Municipal Council, Khurai vs. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653; Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436; S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75; Kerala SEB vs. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2001) 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509; Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2003) 1 SCC 72).

From Para 19,

19. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 Aug 2013

Citations : [2013 AD SC 8 620], [2013 CTR SC 261 113], [2013 ITR SC 357], [2013 JLJR 4 35], [2013 JT SC 11 387], [2013 PLJR 4 179], [2013 SCALE 10 326], [2014 SCC 1 603], [2013 TAXMAN SC 217 143], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 717], [2013 TAXMANNCOM SC 36]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51987756/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ce4b0149711415ba2

Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors on 26 Oct 1998

Posted on July 23 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment from a division bench of the Apex Court.

From Paras 14 and 15,

14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”.
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case- law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.

Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors on 26 Oct 1998 (CM Ver)

Citations : [1998 SCC 8 1], [1999 AIR SC 22], [1998 AIR SC 3345], [1999 BOMCR SC 2 70], [1998 JT 7 243], [1998 SCALE 5 655], [1998 SUPREME 8 176], [1998 AIR SCW 3345]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd361607dba63d7e6e044

UOI and Ors Vs Tantia Construction Pvt Ltd on 18 Apr 2011

Posted on July 23 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench held that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court and that without exhausting such alternative remedy, a writ petition would not be maintainable.

From Paras 27 and 28,

27. Apart from the above, even on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on account of the Arbitration Clause included in the agreement between the parties, it is now well-established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court and that without exhausting such alternative remedy, a writ petition would not be maintainable. The various decisions cited by Mr. Chakraborty would clearly indicate that the constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the authorities. Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution. We endorse the view of the High Court that notwithstanding the provisions relating to the Arbitration Clause contained in the agreement, the High Court was fully within its competence to entertain and dispose of the Writ Petition filed on behalf of the Respondent Company.
28. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the views expressed by the High Court on the maintainability of the Writ Petition and also on its merits. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

UOI and Ors Vs Tantia Construction Pvt Ltd on 18 Apr 2011

Citations : [2011 SCC 5 697], [2011 AIOL 293], [2011 SUPREME 3 294], [2011 SCALE 4 745], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 3 821], [2011 SCC CIV 3 117], [2011 LW 3 691], [2011 ARBLR SC 2 115], [2012 PLJR 1 455], [2011 JCR SC 3 8], [2011 UJ 4 2210], [2011 KLJ 2 15], [2011 AWC SC 5 4568], [2011 SCR 5 397], [2011 JT SC 5 59]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/609434/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aeffe4b01497114154a4

MS Radha Krishan Industries Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 20 Apr 2021

Posted on July 22 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held the following principles in regards to approaching a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

From Para 27,

27 The principles of law which emerge are that :
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.

MS Radha Krishan Industries Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 20 Apr 2021

Citations : [2021 SCC ONLINE SC 334]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62362537/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/60806fd6125abdf1726ab6fb

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 23 Feb 2007

Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 21 Feb 2007

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Aug 2022

XXX Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 05 July 2022

CPIO SCI Vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 13 Nov 2019

Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 Aug 2013

Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors on 26 Oct 1998

UOI and Ors Vs Tantia Construction Pvt Ltd on 18 Apr 2011

MS Radha Krishan Industries Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 20 Apr 2021