Another good judgment from High Court of Kolkata wherein it was held that,
“Unless it is satisfactorily established that domestic violence has taken place neither any protection order under Section 18 nor any residence order under Section 19 nor any order for monetary relief under Section 20 nor any compensation order under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be passed.”
The Supreme Court judgment is here.
Another judgment from Madras High Court, wherein a false DV case on parents was quashed due to generic and non-specific allegation.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11203719/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Another landmark judgment from Justice Jasti Chalameswar on the Supervisory Authority of High Courts on Lower Courts in a state and how and why it should have been invoked in this case gainfully. If not under 193 IPC, invocation of 211 IPC was very much desirable in this case.
Another observation is that one can file Perjury under section 340 CrPC even after getting acquittal.
Citations : [2015 NCC 1 678], [2014 SCC 5 377], [2014 SCC CRI 2 591], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 46], [2014 CTC 1 664], [2014 AIC 135 224], [2014 AIOL 32], [2014 AIR SC 993], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 2 70], [2014 CRLJ SC 1454], [2014 JT 2 180], [2014 SCALE 1 406], [2014 SLT 1 680], [2014 KLJ 1 688], [2014 AICLR 1 828], [2014 MLJ CRI 1 505], [2014 RAJ 1 30], [2014 SCJ 3 152], [2014 LW CRL 1 793], [2014 KCCR SN 3 166], [2014 AIR SCW 993], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 851], [2014 CUT LT 118 22]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25369927/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af43e4b0149711415fb6
Here is the list of ethics for High Judiciary (this is what judges of High Court and Supreme Court call themselves)
And the revised In-House Procedure, for taking suitable remedial action against judges who, by their acts of omission or commission, do not follow universally accepted values of Judicial Life including those included in the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life.
This is another judgment from AP High Court which talks about Rule 37 of CRP and CO, 1990.
The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.
This is another judgment from AP High Court which talks about Rule 37 of CRP and CO, 1990.
The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.
This is one of the earliest judgments from Justice Shri B Siva Shankar Rao, where in he mentioned about Rule 37 of the Criminal Rule of Practice and Circular Order, 1990
The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.
Here is the 1990 edition of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.).
Four judgments of AP High Court that I could find related to Rule 37, are the following:
You can take a look at my 498A case here, where I have used Rule 37 successfully and am filing (absent) petitions via Registered Post – Acknowledge Due to the filing section.
The Amendments made to AP Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 are listed below.
Find the Civil Rules of Practice of AP High Court here.
Hon’ble High Court of Patna has quashed the false DV case of the cunning grand-daughter, holding that there is no domestic relationship as there is no shared household between them.
Aditi was just 17 years old when she filed the complaint. The complaint had been filed through her father Arun Garg being the natural guardian.
In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has saddled the person with heavy exemplary costs, who lied through the teeth in the writ petition. Actually, Costs of Rs.50,00,000/- was brought down to Rs.5,00,000/-
From Para 4,
Writ Petition No.111 of 2011, even if not complete in its form, was maintainable and the same could not have been dismissed by the Court as the prayer by the appellant in that writ petition for habeas corpus was maintainable in view of the right to life and liberty of the petitioners stated therein, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, was violated. The petition had been filed by the appellant as next friend and had not seen the alleged detenues since 4th January, 2007 when they were last seen in Amethi. According to the appellant the representations made to various authorities had failed to yield any results. Thus, that petition was not liable to be dismissed.
Abuse of the process of Court :Unclean Hands
This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:
(i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any any relief.
(ii) The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.
(iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.
(iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.
(v) A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
(vi) The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs.
(vii) Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
(vii) The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted “visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to
take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it.
Citations: [(2013) 2 SCC 398], [AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 699], [MANU/SC/0892/2012], [JT (2012) 10 SC 393]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172073149/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1be4b0149711415a1b
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 2821 access attempts in the last 7 days.
