Relying on landmark judgment of Apex Court here, a Division bench of AP High Court comprising the Chief Justice held that the rule [Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007] which mandates 3 years of practice as requirement from Junior Civil Judge positions in State of AP was unconstitutional and the Notification issued on 03 Dec 2020 was set aside.
Another case got filed at Supreme Court here which was later withdrawn.
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.
(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney-General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.
(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
(1) Whenever any person causes a police officer to arrest another person, if it appears to the Magistrate by whom the case is heard that there was no sufficient ground for causing such arrest, the Magistrate may award such compensation, not exceeding one thousand rupees, to be paid by the person so causing the arrest to the person so arrested, for his loss of time and expenses in the matter, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) In such cases, if more persons than one are arrested, the Magistrate may, in like manner, award to each of them such compensation, not exceeding one thousand rupees, as such Magistrate thinks fit.
(3) All compensation awarded under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine, and, if it cannot be so recovered, the person by whom it is payable shall be sentenced to simple imprisonment for such term not exceeding thirty days as the Magistrate directs, unless such sum is sooner paid.
(1) If, in any case instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate, one or more persons is or are accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate, and the Magistrate by whom the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation against them or any of them, the Magistrate may, by his order of discharge or acquittal, if the person upon whose complaint or information the accusation was made is present, call upon him forthwith to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each or any of such accused when there are more than one; or, if such person is not present, direct the issue of a summons to him to appear and show cause as aforesaid.
(2) The Magistrate shall record and consider any cause which such complainant or informant may show, and if he is satisfied that there was no reasonable ground for making the accusation, may, for reasons to be recorded make an order that compensation to such amount, not exceeding the amount of fine he is empowered to impose, as he may determine, be paid by such complainant or informant to the accused or to each or any of them.
(3) The Magistrate may, by the order directing payment of the compensation under sub-section (2), further order that, in default of payment, the person ordered to pay such compensation shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding thirty days.
(4) When any person is imprisoned under sub-section (3), the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall, so far as may be, apply.
(5) No person who has been directed to pay compensation under this section shall, by reason of such order, be exempted from any civil or criminal liability in respect of the complaint made or information given by him:
Provided that any amount paid to an accused person under this section shall be taken into account in awarding compensation to such person in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter.
(6) A complainant or informant who has been ordered under sub-section (2) by a Magistrate of the second class to pay compensation exceeding one hundred rupees, may appeal from the order, as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial held by such Magistrate.
(7) When an order for payment of compensation to an accused person is made in a case which is subject to appeal under sub-section (6), the compensation shall not be paid to him before the period allowed for the presentation of the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal is presented, before the appeal has been decided; and where such order is made in a case which is not so subject to appeal the compensation shall not be paid before the expiration of one month from the date of the order.
(8) The provisions of this section apply to summons-cases as well as to warrant-cases.
After a long and exhausting prosecution for false allegations and claims in Indian Courts (making good use of remedies available against/with Police and Courts) resulting in favorable decisions, you may want to make good of the following remedies available in law across various forums.
Civil-side Remedies (SEEKING COMPENSATION from the malicious prosecutor)
Criminal-side Remedies
SEEKING COMPENSATION from the malicious prosecutor:
SEEKING PUNISHMENT for the malicious prosecutor:
Remedies under Writ Jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court
After discussion the law around converting one petition into one with different pleadings/prayers under Rule 17 of Order VI of the C.P.C., the division bench of Allahabad High Court held that under this rule, Court has power to allow amendment petitions to avoid multiplicity of suits, to do the substantial justice to parties.
Citations : [2017 ADJ 10 232], [2017 ALLWC 5 4646], [2017 ALR 125 133], [2017 ALR 125 397], [2017 ARC 3 853]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66510547/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e96b4964653d0536457f983
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/smt-preeti-vs-sandeep-asthana
https://www.legitquest.com/case/preeti-v-sandeep-asthana/1A8067
In this short judgment for Contested divorce into MCD, Justice Bhanumathi held that, if the parties do not comply of the terms of compromise, the parties would be liable for contempt of this Court in addition to other remedies available under law.
From Para 8,
8. In case of non-compliance of the terms of compromise, the parties would be liable for contempt of this Court in addition to other remedies available under law.
Citations : [2019 SCC 6 259], [2019 SCC CRI 2 903], [2019 SCC CIV 3 210], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 644]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123208079/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d7b77b13321bc1845b64736
Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Distinguishing the law laid down by Apex Court in Perumal Vs Janaki, Single Judge bench of Madras High Court held that, Investigating officers can not be made liable for perjury (filing false affidavits) in cases where accused was acquitted after trial.
Citations : [2015 SCC ONLINE MAD 11421]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139009470/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e0c8e561092708a3b8c4
https://www.legitquest.com/case/s-mukanchand-bothra-v-rajiv-gandhi-memorial-educational-charitable-trust-chennai-others/973BF
Index of Perjury judgments here.
A division bench of Apex Court held that Perjury cannot be pursued via a private complaint.
From para 16, [Purpose of 340 CrPC]
16. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a prosecution under this Section can be initiated only by the sanction of the court under whose proceedings an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) has allegedly been committed. The object of this Section is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in court during the time when the document or evidence was in custodia legis and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. The court shall not only consider prima facie case but also see whether it is in or against public interest to allow a criminal proceeding to be instituted.
From Para 18 [Talks about the landmark Santohk Singh decision]
18. In Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 406, this Court has held that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify the feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its
very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the court should direct prosecution.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37083044/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c59bac09eff4333856aec6c
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sh-narendra-kumar-srivastava-versus-the-state-of-bihar-ors
Bad Behavior has blocked 4035 access attempts in the last 7 days.
