Anil Kumar Talan Vs on State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 12 Jul 2022

Posted on August 16 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Delhi High Court held in open to dry the criminal connivance of the petitioner and his family, just because the daughter does not want to live with sol-in-law.

From Para 8,

8. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
At the outset, it may be noticed that Abhishek Kumar S/o the complainant remained in custody on the basis of fabrication of incident of disappearance made by Komal Talan. The interim protection to Komal Talan in the aforesaid facts and circumstances has already been declined by this Court during the pendency of her application for anticipatory bail. So far as the present application is concerned, the petitioner’s connivance is supported by the fact that mobile number 9997066979 used by him was provided by Nizamuddin as disclosed during investigation.
At this stage, it cannot be ignored that Komal Talan was in touch with the family members during the aforesaid period and consequently Abhishek Kumar remained in custody. Also, the matter appears to have been highlighted in media on the basis of alleged suicide note, which the prosecution seeks to recover.
A bare perusal of aforesaid factual position reveals that to wreak vengeance for oblique motive, the incident of alleged suicide was fabricated. The same not only led to ignominy, adverse media coverage and misery to the family of complainant but also resulted in undue incarceration of Abhishek Kumar (husband of Komal Talan). The criminal proceedings were initiated as a gross abuse of the process of law. The implication and consequences of such conduct may not have been fully visualized by the petitioner at the aforesaid time but the uncalled for detention of Abhishek Kumar definitely ruined the chances of settlement. The law appears to have been used as a weapon than a shield by fabricating the incident of disappearance and suicide.
I am of the considered view that a serious view needs to be taken of such incidents to ensure that social fabric is not ruined by such fabrication of facts. If false implication by fabricated omnibus allegations against entire family in the course of matrimonial disputes and differences, is allowed, it may lead to further misuse of the process of law and assume serious proportions.
Considering the grave nature of allegations and the fact that criminal proceedings under Section 364 IPC were falsely initiated, in connivance, I do not find the case to be fit for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Anil Kumar Talan Vs on State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) 12 Jul 2022

Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 23 Feb 2007

Posted on August 11 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji highlighted as follows:

From Paras 3 and 4,

3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as per allegations dowry demand was made even before marriage i.e. at the time of engagement and an AC was demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father had assured that AC would be given at the time of marriage. However, she told her father “You have given car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if they demand a flat tomorrow?”. Despite her this conversation with her father and despite her knowing that dowry demand had already been made, she married in the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well-educated lady and was an engineer and her brother was in police. In fact, these kinds of allegations made after breakdown of the marriage show the mentality of the complainant. I consider where these kinds of allegations are made, the police should simultaneously register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, the Act) against the parents of the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite demand of dowry. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a woman of grown up age and well educated gets married to a person despite dowry demand, she and her family becomes accomplice in the crime under Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:

2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-
(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.
(2)The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.
(3)Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule(1) or Sub-rule(2)-
(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;
(b) shall be in writing;
(c) shall contain:-
(i) a brief description of each present;
(ii) the approximate value of the present;
(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and
(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such relationship.
(d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.

5. The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in.

Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 23 Feb 2007

Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 21 Feb 2007

Posted on August 11 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji highlighted the misuse of 498A IPC by some unscrupulous women.

From Para 7,

7. Now-a-days, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations against every member of the family of the husband, involving everybody under Section 498A and 406 of the IPC by making one or the other allegations. Hence, it has become very necessary for the Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute the offence and meet the requirements of law at least prima facie. The learned ASJ scrutinized the entire FIR and the statement of complainant and thereafter observed that no case was made out against these two minor girls. I have also gone through the record and find that except above allegations made by the complainant, no other role was assigned to these two minor girls (respondents).

Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 21 Feb 2007

Arshad Ahmad and Ors Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 02 Jun 2022

Posted on July 22 by ShadesOfKnife

Arshad Ahmad and Ors Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 02 Jun 2022

Vikas Chaudhary Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Jan 2022

Posted on May 31 by ShadesOfKnife

Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

What clearly emerges is that in the aforesaid case, the Court was dealing with a situation, where a FIR had already been lodged and a criminal investigation was ongoing against the person against whom the LOC had been issued. The same was the situation in S. Martin v. Deputy Commissioner of Police SCC OnLine Mad 426. In the present case, as has already been noted, no proceedings under any penal law have, in fact, been initiated against the petitioner. These decisions are therefore, clearly distinguishable and do not, in any manner forward the case of the respondents.

Vikas Chaudhary Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Jan 2022

Citations : [2022 SCC ONLINE DEL 97]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172206187/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/61e011eb9fca1952d4e03e62

Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010

Posted on May 15 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Delhi High Court had issued certain guidelines to be followed for issuing Look Out Circulars.

A. Recourse to LOC can be taken by investigating agency in cognizable offences under IPC or other penal laws, where the accused was deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite NBWs and other coercive measures and there was likelihood of the accused leaving the country to evade trial/arrest.

B. The Investigating Officer shall make a written request for LOC to the officer as notified by the circular of Ministry of Home Affairs, giving details & reasons for seeking LOC. The competent officer alone shall give directions for opening LOC by passing an order in this respect.

C. The person against whom LOC is issued must join investigation by appearing I.O or should surrender the court concerned or should satisfy the court that LOC was wrongly issued against him. He may also approach the officer who ordered issuance of LOC & explain that LOC was wrongly issued against him. LOC can be withdrawn by the authority that issued and can also be rescinded by the trial court where case is pending or having jurisdiction over concerned police station on an application by the person concerned.

D. LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender to the investigating agency or Court of law. The subordinate courts’ jurisdiction in affirming or cancelling LOC is commensurate with the jurisdiction of cancellation of NBWs or affirming NBWs.

Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010

Citations : [2010 JCC 4 2401], [2010 ILR DEL 6 706], [2010 DMC 2 666], [2010 CCR 4 134], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 2699]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26846768/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea8d9d607dba371ebca94a

S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018

Posted on April 1 by ShadesOfKnife

The Erudite Judge, Justice JR Midha has passed this decision on framing of issues in a DV Case.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 28th March, 2017 whereby the Family Court dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.P.C.’) for framing of additional issues.

From Para 9,

9. Summary of principles
9.1. D.V. Act provides a remedy in civil law for the protection of victims of the domestic violence as noted in the Statement of Object and Reasons.
9.2. The aggrieved person can file the application for the reliefs under the D.V. Act to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.
9.3. If any suit or other legal proceedings affecting the aggrieved person are pending before a Civil Court, Family Court or Criminal Court, Section 26 gives an option to the aggrieved person to approach such Court for reliefs under the D.V. Act. However, no independent application is maintainable before the Civil Court or Family Court, if no proceedings are pending before them affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent.
9.4. The Civil Court, Family Court or Criminal Court dealing with the application under Sections 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act can formulate its own procedure under Section 28(2) of the D.V. Act. The word ‘Court’ in Section 28(2) of the D.V. Act includes Civil Court, Family Court as well as the Criminal Court.
9.5. The Court shall formulate the procedure after completion of pleadings in an application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act.
9.6. After completion of pleadings, the concerned Court shall consider whether evidence is necessary to adjudicate the application under the D.V. Act and if so, the Court shall frame the issues and record the evidence. However, if no evidence is considered necessary, the Court shall list the application for hearing.

From Para 10,

10. Findings
10.1. In the present case, the Family Court is dealing with the petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore, the petitioner’s application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act seeking reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the D.V. Act is maintainable before the Family Court.
10.2. The Family Court is empowered to formulate its own procedure for disposal of the petitioner’s application under D.V. Act. In that view of the matter, it is not mandatory for the Family Court to follow Cr.P.C.
10.3. The proper procedure for disposal of the petitioner’s application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act after completion of pleadings is to consider whether evidence is necessary to adjudicate the petitioner’s application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act.
10.4. If the Court finds that the evidence is not necessary, the Court shall list the application for hearing. However, if the evidence is considered necessary, the Court shall frame the issues and record the evidence along with the evidence in the divorce petition.
10.5. The respondent’s defence before the Family Court as well as this Court that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act, is frivolous and is rejected.
10.6. The respondent attempted to mislead this Court by raising a frivolous defence with respect to the nature of proceedings under Section 26 of the D.V. Act whereas the law is clear and well settled that the Civil Court, Family Court and Criminal Court have jurisdiction to entertain and try an application under Section 26 in pending proceedings affecting the parties and the Court can formulate its own procedure to conduct the proceedings.
10.7. xxxxx

S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018

Citations : [2018 SCC ONLINE DEL 8421], [2018 DLT 248 511], [2018 HLR 2 238], [2019 HLR 1 784]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/72057276/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ad842949eff430def4a5a08

https://vlex.in/vid/s-vs-j-709886493

Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022

Posted on March 15 by ShadesOfKnife

Single judge bench of Delhi High Court held that the Court has to balance the rights of the aggrieved person and the parents-in-law when the question of residence arises for the aggrieved person while her marital relationship subsists.

From Paras 24 and 25,

24. Admittedly where the parties are residing is a flat, having only three bed rooms, a drawing room and the appellant is in possession of a room in the said flat, then considering there are various complaints filed by them against each other; their relations being not cordial, would it in such circumstances, be appropriate for them to stay together and fight every minute of their existence. In Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) in para No.90 the Court had observed we need to strike a balance between the rights of daughter-in-law and her in-laws.
25. Admittedly, the right of residence under Section 19 of the DV Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. In this case, both being senior citizens of aged about 74 and 69 years and being in the evening of their life, are entitled to live peacefully and not to be haunted by the marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law.

From Para 27,

27. Thus, where the residence is a shared household, it does not create any embargo upon the owner to claim eviction against his daughter-in-law. A strained frictional relationship between the parties would be relevant to decide whether the grounds of eviction exist. I am of the considered opinion, since there exist a frictional relationship between the parties, then at the fag end of their lives it would not be advisable for old parents to stay with appellant and hence it would be appropriate if an alternative accommodation is provided to the appellant as is directed in the impugned order per Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

And finally from Para 28,

28. Thus, there is no force in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. The undertaking made at Bar to provide an alternative accommodation to the appellant till her matrimony exists be filed in the form of an affidavit of the respondent within two weeks from today before the learned Trial Court. The execution of decree be postponed till such suitable alternative accommodation is found and the applicant is conveniently shifted therein. The learned Trial Court to impose conditions in case of non-payment of rental including electricity /water charges etc by respondent.

Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022

Citations : [2022 SCC ONLINE DEL 594]

Other Sources :

https://caselaw.in/delhi/shared-household-ravneet-kaur-prithpal-singh-dhingra/16/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6217abd79fca1954d2a81a9a

Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011

Posted on March 10 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Apex Court’s Surinder Mohan Vikal decision, Delhi High Court held that if any offence is made out in a complaint under Section 500 IPC for defamation, Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. is attracted and cognizance of offence should be taken within a period of three years from the date of occurrence.

Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011

Citations : [2011 DLT 182 221], [2012 CRICC 1 85], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 4 735], [2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 2664], [2011 RCR CRI 4 735]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10503637/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090e0ae4b014971117b1c7

Rakesh Kumar Vs Vijayanta Arya (DCP) and Ors on 07 Dec 2021

Posted on March 5 by ShadesOfKnife

A police officer was punished with 1 day imprisonment (suspended the same so that an appeal may be filed) for breaching Arnesh Kumar Guidelines.

From Paras 1 and 2,

1. The court has already held R-3 guilty of committing contempt of court. He arrested the petitioner in breach of directions passed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1277/2014. The requisite notice was not served upon the petitioner. There were mere allegations of criminal breach of trust against the petitioner, which entailed a maximum sentence of three years. It did not warrant the arrest of a person in the manner in which it was done. The petitioner’s own complaints to the police were not responded to. The highhandedness of the police officer, in specific breach of the Supreme Court’s directions is evident. Arnesh Kumar (supra) holds that in the event of non-service of notice under section 41A of the Cr.P.C., contempt proceedings would be initiated.

2. The petitioner’s right to personal liberty is ensured by the Constitution of India. It can be curtained only by a procedure prescribed established by law. The Supreme Court has said in Arnesh Kumar that notice under s. 41A Cr.P.C. is requisite. The notice was not served. The law has been breached. It is not the petitioner only who has suffered the humiliation and the indignity of being arrested; the ordeal would have affected the reputation of his family i.e. his children, wife and parents. No amount of explanation to the neighbours or those who may have seen the arrest, would undo the
embarrassment and indignity suffered by the petitioner and his relatives. Arrest and incarceration destroys a person and collaterally affects many other innocent relatives. Subsequent release or acquittal of an innocent, is of no solace and offers no reparation to the loss of reputation or for the temporary loss of precious personal liberty. A stigma gets attached to the person who has been taken away, detained and/or put behind bars by the police. R-3 is deemed to have due knowledge of the rights of a citizen and the procedure prescribed in law.

Rakesh Kumar Vs Vijayanta Arya (DCP) and Ors on 07 Dec 2021

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification

Anil Kumar Talan Vs on State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 12 Jul 2022

Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 23 Feb 2007

Neera Singh Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 21 Feb 2007

Arshad Ahmad and Ors Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 02 Jun 2022

Vikas Chaudhary Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Jan 2022

Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010

S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018

Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022

Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011

Rakesh Kumar Vs Vijayanta Arya (DCP) and Ors on 07 Dec 2021