In this case, hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, has not done quash but ordered the case to be transferred to a different police station, as the original PS has no jurisdiction to investigate the case.
The State Of Telangana Vs Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors on 6 January, 2017
This judgment from hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the High Court cannot direct the police not to arrest the petitioners during the pendency of the investigation just because they pleaded to be innocents, especially when it held that it is not inclined to interfere on the ground that it was not appropriate to stay the investigation of the case.
Interesting:
It is a well-settled proposition of law what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.
Tahmeena Kaleem And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 17 January, 2014
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has, in this judgment, reminded about the menace of roping in all relatives of husband into false litigation while granting anticipatory bail to relatives of husband.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122766842/
https://www.legitquest.com/case/tahmeena-kaleem-others-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh/86139
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Tahmeena-Kaleem-and-Others-Versus-State-of-Andhra-Pradesh-2014-01-17
Manju Dutta Vs The State & Ors. on 29 January, 2013
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that if there are no allegations of any offence taking place within the jurisdiction of this Court the falsely instituted IPC 498A/406 case was liable to be quashed.
In addition, it was held that,
At the same time in view of the judgment in Malkiat Singh’s case and further in Bimla Rawal & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2008(1) LRC 391 (Delhi) the challan is returned to the IO so that the same can be presented to the appropriate court in compliance with the provision of Section 170 Cr. P.C.
The cruel begging was rightly given back the ‘katora‘ to beg somewhere else where there is proper jurisdiction.
Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2005
In this Writ Petition by Sushil Kumar Sharma, which was dismissed though, had this prayer,
By this petition purported to have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short ‘the Constitution’) prayer is to declare Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’) to be unconstitutional and ultra vires in the alternative to formulate guidelines so that innocent persons are victimized by unscrupulous persons making false accusations.
And,
Further prayer is made that whenever, any court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made regarding commission of offence under Section 498 IPC are unfounded, stringent action should be taken against person making the allegations. This according to the petitioner, would discourage persons from coming to courts with unclean hands and ulterior motives. Several instances have been highlighted to show as to how commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC has been made with oblige motive and with a view to harass the husband, in-laws and relatives.
Here is the legal terrorism comment,
The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bonafide and have filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignonymy suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra-vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing frame work. As noted the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not assassins’ weapon. If cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any strait jacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre- conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumption that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalized statement. Certain statutory presumption are drawn which again are reputable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that in innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view.
And it was dismissed like this,
Prayer has been made to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the ‘CBI’) in certain matters where the petitioner is arrayed as an accused. We do not find any substance in this plea. If the petitioner wants to prove his innocence, he can do so in the trial, if held.
Citations: [2005 ALLMR SC 5 982], [2005 SCR 730], [2006 CRLR 44], [2005 SRJ 8 90], [2005 CRLJ 0 3439], [2005 CRI LJ 3439], [2005 RCR CRI 3 745], [2005 SCC CR 0 1473], [2005 AIOL 300], [2005 CCR 3 43], [2005 KERLT 3 611], [2005 JT 6 266], [2005 CRLR 661], [2005 SCALE 5 523], [2005 MLJ CRI 1 887], [2005 ALLMR 5 982], [2006 CALCRILR 44], [2005 SLT 5 438], [2005 JCRIC 2 1193], [2005 ALD CRI 2 633], [2005 DMC 2 325], [2005 SCJ 5 303], [2005 SCC 6 281], [2005 AIR SC 3100], [2005 SCC CRI 0 1473], [2005 AIR SC 0 3569], [2005 UJ SC 2 1057], [2005 SUPREME 5 137]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1172674/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae15e4b0149711412e70
Ramgopal & Anr Vs State Of M.P.& Anr on 30 July, 2010
Hon’ble Supreme Court in this order, has held that,
There are several offences under the IPC that are currently non-compoundable. These include offences punishable under Section 498-A, Section 326, etc. of the IPC. Some of such offence can be made compoundable by introducing a suitable amendment in the statute. We are of the opinion that the Law Commission of India could examine whether a suitable proposal can be sent to theUnion Government in this regard. Any such step would not only relieve the courts of the burden of deciding cases in which the aggrieved parties have themselves arrived at a settlement, but may also encourage the process of re-conciliation between them. We, accordingly, request the Law Commission and the Government of India to examine all these aspects and take such steps as may be considered feasible.
The Secretary General of this Court shall forthwith send a copy of this order to the Law Commission of India as well as to the Law Secretary to the Government of India. The Law Secretary is requested to place a copy of this order before the Hon’ble Minister of Law & Justice, Union of India.
Amarsang Nathaji As Himself Vs Hardik Harshadbhai Patel And Ors on 23 November, 2016
Hon’ble Apex Court has, in this 341 Appeal, held that it was not expedient in the interest of justice to continue with CrPC 340 proceedings at High Court of Gujarat and moreover it held that lower court has not followed the procedure in making the opinion that it was expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint against respondent no.1 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 340 of the CrPC.
“6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1) CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 178 , 1992 SCC (Cri) 572.) The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.”
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100876905/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5837160d53bee74f64c25ebd
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2016/11/25/merely-making-contradictory-statement-in-a-judicial-proceeding-is-not-by-itself-always-sufficient-to-justify-a-prosecution-under-sections-199-and-200-ipc/
Index of Perjury case laws is here.
Vikash Gupta vs Deep Mala Gupta on 29 November, 2017
Interesting case under CrPC 341 (Appeal on CrPC 340 dismissal) here from District Court of Delhi. It was held that, the administration of justice would not have been affected even though there was concealment of material fact.
From Para 18,
Secondly, it was submitted that in the present case, no interim order was passed by the ld. Trial court in favour of the respondent, believing the averments made in para 1(k) of the application.
From Para 30,
Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the administration of justice with regard to grant of maintenance to the respondent/wife would not have been affected despite there being concealment of facts in para 1(k) of the application filed by the respondent as there was other material on record filed by the respondent in the nature of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand’s order dated 04.12.2008, admission made in the rejoinder regarding receipt of subsistence allowance and the evidence by affidavit being there on record admitting claiming of subsistence allowance from the appellant.
