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.
Based on judgment of AP High Court here, this judgment has quashed the entire proceedings under CrPC 482, on the A3 (sister of husband) as there are omnibus allegations on the accused A3.
Citations: [2015 ALT CRI 3 478]
Other Source links:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e0f026607dba38965f2b4b
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
Even though Sessions judge convicted the mother and father of the sex victim for giving inconsistent evidence under IPC 193 read with CrPC 344, Hon’ble High Court of AP did a U turn and modified the order that,
Therefore, keeping in mind the fate of children, who attained marriageable age, I deem it appropriate to set aside the substantivesentence of imprisonment imposed against the first appellant, who is a woman, while confirming the fine amount of Rs.500/- and thesubstantive sentence of imprisonment imposed against the secondappellant is reduced to 15 days, while confirming the fine amount of Rs.500/- as the alleged perjury appears to be intentional but toprotect the children’s future to wipe out the stigma on the chastity ofdaughter.
Read the Sessions Judge Order here.
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that,
The invocation of jurisdiction under extraordinary powers vested in this Court cannot be allowed to a person, who comes to the Court with unclean hands or suppressing material facts in order to gain advantage. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the lethargy or inaction on the part of the Government Officers. If the petitioner is really aggrieved, this Court will extend its helping hand in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India or/and the laws framed under it. But, this Court will never encourage misuse of process of this Court. This Court cannot be used for the purpose of getting interim orders to protect an unlawful need/demand of the litigants who are greedy. This is a sacred institution and it cannot be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
Finally,
In view of the suppression of fact of dismissal of W.P.No.25217 of 2003 on 16.11.2009, and not disclosing complete facts with regard to the case of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Telangana Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks.
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
Curious point in this judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, is that
It is true by virtue of marriage between A1 and complainant, the relatives of one side became relatives of both sides in a general sense. However, for the strict construction of penal provision under Section 498A, A6 who was the relative of the complainant, cannot be said to be the relative of the husband of the complainant i.e.A1. For this reason and also for the reason that no allegations of cruelty falling within the meaning of Section 498A IPC and the allegations touching other offences are made against A6, she deserves quashment of the proceedings.
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has quashed the proceedings under IPC 498A, just because husband didn’t respond while he was on his personal tour, the knife alleged illicit relationship to her husband. And the Court rightly dust-binned the case as illicit relationship does not attract IPC 498A provisions, even if taken to be true.
This judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh confirms the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in a IPC 302 case which also had IPC 498A and 34.
Interesting element in this case is, apart from the accused’s own plea of guilty while charges were read over to and being filed against him, it was his 9 year old daughter’s eye witness statement, which got him convicted.
This quash judgment from Andhra Pradesh High Court, albeit dismissed, has some legal points discussed apart from citing good earlier judgments which clarified the position of law in case of out of jurisdiction cases.
Observation
In the present case, the second respondent was driven out from the matrimonial home from Mumbai. The second respondent went to the house of her parents at Tenali. In view of Manish Ratan (2 supra), Tenali Courts do not get territorial jurisdiction merely because the second respondent returned to Tenali. However, in view of Geeta Mehrotra (5 supra), where the Supreme Court held that the question of territorial jurisdiction shall be determined by the trial Court and not in a petition u/s.482Cr.P.C., I consider that this petition is misconceived.
Next Step in Summary
File the discharge petition at trial court before charged/issues are filed against the accused.
Judgments cited in this judgment
Bad Behavior has blocked 1369 access attempts in the last 7 days.
