Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

Posted on October 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Citing Iqbal Marwah here and other landmark case laws, Supreme Court says,

From Para 10,

10. It is fairly well settled that before lodging of the complaint, it is necessary that the court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint. It is not necessary that the court must use the actual words of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; but the court should record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. Observing that under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not on mere allegations or to vindicate personal vendetta,

From Para 11,

11. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient in the interest of justice”. The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. It has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the present case whether any prima facie case is made out for forgery or making a forged document warranting issuance of directions for lodging the complaint under Section 193, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

From Para 19,

19. Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama is wrong, mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to create a forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the appellants.

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC 6 477], [2019 SCC CRI 2 826], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 664], [AIR 2019 SC 2280], [2019 (2) Crimes 279], [2019 (7) Scale 559], [2019 CriLJ 2896], [2019 CrLJ 2896], [2019 (3) JLJR 122], [2019 (3) PLJR 122]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150953328/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cd3c6064a932660042c22f2

https://caselaw.in/supreme-court/sasikala-pushpa-v-state-of-tamil-nadu/4295/

Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Post Views: 566

CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020

Posted on October 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Delhi High Court held this interesting point on discharge an accused.

71. In view of above facts discussed, the settled law is that if the prosecution witnesses presumed to be true, without any cross examination, still conviction cannot be awarded to the accused, then deserves for discharge, as the case in hand is.

CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here.

Post Views: 141

Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Aug 2018

Posted on October 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held as follows:

11) In our opinion, when a party relies upon any evidence, whether it is oral or documentary, in support of his case, the Court/Committee/Authority, as the case may be, and especially the original Court is under an obligation to apply its mind to the entire documentary evidence on which the party has placed reliance for proving his case and record its reasoned findings whether accepting the evidence or rejecting it. What is important is the consideration of entire evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with law while deciding the case.

Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors 10 Aug 2018

Citations : [2018 SCC 9 89], [2018 SCC L&S 2 572], [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 882], [2018 AIR SC 3776]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35798783/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b6dc0919eff433a41935bfc

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/vilas-dinkar-bhat-versus-state-of-maharashtra-ors

Post Views: 292

D.Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain on 18 Jun 2020

Posted on October 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Instead of a Private complaint, the victim should have filed a police complaint u/s 166A IPC as is was inserted into the CrPC book via 2013 Amendment (Due to 2012 Nirbhaya incident)

D.Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain on 18 Jun 2020

Citations : 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 517

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127137628/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ef19a8f3321bc37150ee24f

Post Views: 156

D. T. Virupakshappa Vs C Subash on 27 Apr 2015

Posted on October 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that, even though there is police excess, it was connected to (meaning part of) the investigation of a criminal case.

From Para 10,

10. In our view, the above guidelines squarely apply in the case of the appellant herein. Going by the factual matrix, it is evident that the whole allegation is on police excess in connection with the investigation of a criminal case. The said offensive conduct is reasonably connected with the
performance of the official duty of the appellant. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the case without the previous sanction of the State Government. The High Court missed this crucial point in the impugned order.

D. T. Virupakshappa Vs C Subash on 27 Apr 2015

Citations : [2015 AIR SC 2022], [2015 AD SC 5 462], [2015 AJR 4 624], [2015 AKR 2 755], [2015 CCR SC 2 350], [2015 CRIMES SC 4 214], [2015 JLJR 3 123], [2015 NCC 2 243], [2015 OLR SC 2 409], [2015 PLJR 3 204], [2015 RCR CRIMINAL 2 1001], [2015 SCJ 8 265], [2015 UC 2 867], [2015 SCC 12 231], [2016 SCC CRI 1 82], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 390], [2015 SCR 5 534], [2015 GUJ LH 2 359], [2015 AIC 151 175], [2015 ECRN 3 176], [2015 CRI LJ 2589], [2015 ALT CRL SC 3 143]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4302712/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b295e561097e45a4e2d0

Post Views: 112

Sankaran Moitra Vs Sadhna Das and Anr on 24 Mar 2006

Posted on October 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Majority judgment from this 3-judge bench regarding the applicability of sanction from government to prosecute a public servant u/s 197 CrPC.

Sankaran Moitra Vs Sadhna Das and Anr on 24 Mar 2006

Dissenting opinion by Justice C.K. Thakker:

Sankaran Moitra Vs Sadhna Das and Anr on 24 Mar 2006 (Thakker J)

Citations :

2006 AIOL 1722006 SUPREME 4 6452006 SCC CRI 2 3582006 SCC 4 5842006 JT 4 342006 AIR SC 16952006 BOMCR CRI SC 2 4512006 AIR SC 15992006 SCALE 3 4142006 AIR SCW 1695

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1179931/

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1212531/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae38e4b014971141334c

Earlier Calcutta High Court Judgment here.

Post Views: 160

Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh and Ors Vs Jammal Patel and Ors on 12 May 2001

Posted on October 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh and Ors Vs Jammal Patel and Ors on 12 May 2001

Citations : [2002 ACR SC 2 1768], [2001 ALD CRI 1 902], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 1512], [2001 JT SUPPL SC 1 32], [2001 PLJR 4 2], [2001 RLW SC 2 262], [2001 SCALE 4 205], [2001 SCC 5 7], [2001 SCR 3 766], [2001 UC 2 177], [2001 AIR SC 0 2125], [2001 SCC 0 2198], [2001 SUPREME 4 236], [2001 BOMCR CRI SC 721], [2001 SLT 4 259], [2001 SRJ 6 373], [2001 CCR 2 281], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 2 681], [2002 CRJ 1 632], [2001 AD SC 5 28], [2001 BLR 4 356], [2001 CRLJ SC 2897], [2001 JT 32], [2001 AIR SC 2198],

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/522373/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad93e4b0149711411bdb

Post Views: 159

Mohan Murari Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 16 Oct 2020

Posted on October 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is so cute judgment where in to get Anticipatory Bail, husband has to pay maintenance to knife in Divorce matter husband filed. Aaa baile mujhe maat…

Mohan Murari Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 16 Oct 2020

Here is the jewel of the Order given at Patna High Court.

Mohan Murari Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 20 Sep 2019

This is precisely why I advocate quick disposal of civil matters… A helpful compilation is here.

Post Views: 94

Limitation Act 1963

Posted on October 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Post Views: 124

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020

Posted on October 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court held that issuance of new passport may be barred in sec 6 of Passports Act 1967, but not renewal.

11. A reading of Section 6(2)(f) of the Passport Act indicates that, the passport authority shall refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if a criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant in India . However, the said provision does not provide for refusing to issue a passport for a person who intends to travel back to India . Hence, reading of this provision clearly indicates that it is applicable only for issuing a fresh passport and not for renewal of passport and this view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ashok Khanna –vs- Central Bureau of Investigation (supra). Delhi High Court while interpreting Section 6 of the Passport Act, 1967 has held that the Passport Authority can refuse to issue passport or an endorsement for visiting any country but nowhere in the provision it is mentioned that even for renewal of passport, the Authority can refuse to renew the passport.

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020

Post Views: 112

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020

Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Aug 2018

D.Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain on 18 Jun 2020

D. T. Virupakshappa Vs C Subash on 27 Apr 2015

Sankaran Moitra Vs Sadhna Das and Anr on 24 Mar 2006

Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh and Ors Vs Jammal Patel and Ors on 12 May 2001

Mohan Murari Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 16 Oct 2020

Limitation Act 1963

Krishna Chiranjeevi Rao Palukuri Venkata Vs Union of India and Ors on 1 Oct 2020