In this false DV case, Justice JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, discussed two contentions but adjudicated only on one aspect.
The Supreme Court crushed this judgment here and quashed the false DV case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cc473859eff43397d6ab68f
The Index of these cases is here.
Justice R.Banumathi has delivered this wonderful judgment in a false DV Case, holding that,
9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants. Appellant No.14 is the husband and appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent. All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-in-law of the respondent. Appellants No.4, 6 and 10 are the wives of appellants No.3, 5 and 9 respectively. Appellants No.7 and 8 are the parents of appellant No.1. Appellants No.1 to 6 and 14 are residents of Chennai. Appellants No.7 to 10 are the residents of State of Rajasthan and appellants No.11 to 13 are the residents of State of Gujarat. Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and appellant No.1 has been at Chennai. Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of the respondent and appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there are averments of alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken away the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of appellant No.14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie case against the other appellants No.3 to 13. Since there are no specific allegations against appellants No.3 to 13, the criminal case of domestic violence against them cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed.
The Lower High Court judgment in the DV Case is here that got quashed in Supreme Court.
The liar filed a false 498A IPC case also on all 14 accused. Except husband and In-laws, the false case on all 11 others got quashed at Karnataka High Court here.
Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 65], [2020 SCC 3 14], [2020 SCC CRI 1 722], [2020 AIR SC 762], [2020 KLT 1 666], [2020 KLJ 1 799]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/41851528/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e2a8c723321bc23c21105d2
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/shyamlal-devda-and-others-versus-parimala
The Index of these cases is here.
In this landmark judgment, Supreme Court of India had formulated the following procedure while questions are put to witness during cross-examination. Also, per 138 Evidence Act, ‘Chief examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.‘.
It has been held that, where admissibility of document is objected then the Court should tentatively mark the document as an exhibit and can determine the objections at the last stage in the final judgment. But, while holding so, the Apex Court carved an exception regarding admissibility of a document where objection is based on deficient stamp duty, then the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further.
In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1966 SC 1631 for the proposition that no act of Court shall harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of Court to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court, he should be restored to the position he would have occupied.
Citations: [2001 ACR SC 1 8], [2001 SCC 3 1], [2001 SUPREME 2 65], [2001 CRILJ 1254], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 452], [2001 UC 1 471], [2001 PLJR 2 132], [2001 GLH 2 545], [2001 SCR 2 29], [2001 CRLJ SC 1254], [2001 SCC CRI 417], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 1 859], [2002 LW CRL 1 115], [2001 ELT SC 134 611], [2001 CGLJ 1 366], [2001 ECC 74 287], [2001 RLW SC 1 169], [2001 UJ SC 1 573], [2001 AIR SC 1158], [2001 JT 3 120], [2001 SCALE 2 167], [2001 AIR SC 841], [2001 CRIMES SC 1 288], [2001 GLR 3 168], [2001 OLR 1 428], [2001 ALD CRI 1 548]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/372318/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad94e4b0149711411c07
AP High Court passed a judgment based on this case law here. Recent Bombay High Court judgment is here.
Bombay High Court held that, though
the Judge may come to a conclusion that, the question is not relevant at that stage, however possibility cannot be ruled out that the said question may become relevant at the later stage, and therefore, it was requested to the Court that, all the questions be taken and subject to objections the answers be taken and then the relevancy or admissibility of the questions may be later on considered.
…
It was also requested to the learned Judge that, in view of the procedure laid down in Bipin Panchal’s case (Supra) the evidence may be recorded even after the objection is raised so that the Appellate Court should be benefited, if it is found at a later stage that any question was or questions were relevant.
Citations:
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/84446763/
Supreme Court judgment is here.
Very good article by Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh regarding many aspects of Perjury under section 340 CrPC.
This is the SLP at Supreme Court of India, assailing the well reasoned judgment of Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra of Delhi High Court, ordering a Perjurer to pay a fine of 15.1 Lakhs to the victim.
We find no ground to interfere with the well considered judgment passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Citations:
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaa0f7607dba382a079e61
The Delhi High Court judgment is available here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
My favorite Judge, Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji had delivered this gem of an order.
9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for overflowing of Court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong-doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong-doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong-doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts.
Citations: [154 (2008) DLT 411],
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66a48607dba6b53436039
The appeal filed at Supreme Court is available here.
Bombay High Court holds that,
“the purpose of the codified statute is that on any point specifically dealt with by it the law shall be ascertained by interpreting the language used.“
and,
The Indian Penal Code defines the offence and also states what matters will afford a defence, and therefore it may be said that this Code deals specifically with the question, and it follows that the Court is not entitled to invoke the Common Law of England in the matter at all.
Indian Law Reports version:
Casemine version:
Citations: [(1923) ILR 46 Bom 605], [A. I. R. (10) 1923 Mad. 523 (F. B.)],
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/338846/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5721afa7607dba2e3c8879c8
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
In this landmark classic case, Supreme Court has held that,
16. In a recent judgment of the House of Lords Rumping v. Director of Public Prosecutions 1962 3 All ER 256 Rumping the in mate of a Dutch ship was tried for murder committed on board the ship. Part of the evidence for the prosecution admitted at the trial consisted of a letter that Rumping had written to his wife in Holland which amounted to a confession. Rumping had written the letter on the day of the killing, and had handed the letter in a closed envelope to a member of the crew requesting him to post it as soon as the ship arrived at the port outside England. After the appellant was arrested, the member of the crew handed the envelope to the captain of the ship who handed it over to the police. The member of the crew, the captain and the translator of the letter gave evidence at the trial, but the wife was not called as witness. It was held that the letter was admissible in evidence. Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest, Lord Hodson and Lord Pearce were of the view that at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy. Accordingly except where the spouse to whom the communication is made is a witness and claims privilege from disclosure under the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (of which the terms are similar to Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act though not identical), evidence as to communications between husband and wife during marriage is admissible in criminal proceedings.
17. The question whether the complainant in this case is an agent of the wife because he has received the letters from the wife and may be permitted to give evidence is a matter on which no opinion at this stage can be expressed. The complainant claims that he has been defamed by the writing of the letters. The letters are in his possession and are available for being tendered in evidence. We see no reason why inquiry into that complaint should, on the preliminary contentions raised, be prohibited. If the complainant seeks to support his case only upon the evidence of the wife of the accused, he may be met with the bar of Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act. Whether he will be able to prove the letters in any other manner is a matter which must be left to be determined at the trial and cannot be made the subject-matter of an enquiry at this stage.
Supreme Court of India version:
Case Mine version:
Citations: [1969 SCR 2 692], [1970 AIR SC 1876], [968 KERLT 904], [1950 AIR TC 38], [1969 SCC 1 37], [1970 CAR 210], [1970 CRLJ 0 1651], [1970 CRI LJ 1651]
Indiankanoon.org or ILR link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1159106/ or http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/21403
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
In this landmark judgment by old Madras High Court, it was held that the accusations made in a complaint to Magistrate do NOT have absolute privilege and only have qualified privilege as provided under section 499 of IPC. Such accusations are liable for defamation if NOT protected by exception 8.
Indian Law Review version (Original):
Indiankanoon Version:
Citations: [49 Mad. 728], [A. I. R. (18) 1926 Mad. 906], [1926 (27) Cri LJ 1026], [AIR 1926 Mad 906], [(1926) 51 MLJ 112],
Indiankanoon.org or ILR link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1159106/ or http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/21403
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Bad Behavior has blocked 781 access attempts in the last 7 days.
