High Court of Gurajat held in this judgment that, disposal of perjury can be done at the end of a main petition/case but it does not stop magistrate to form an opinion by conducting a preliminary inquiry.
Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited Vs Sharda Steel Corporation on 26 March, 2012
A fine of Rs.40,000/- was levied on the pejurer for lying repeatedly on affidavits as well as under oath by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.
Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr on 26 August, 2010This is the judgment from Gujarat High Court, wherein it held concurrent jurisdiction exists between 125 CrPC and PWDV Act.
From Para 12,
Therefore, even if there is no reference of maintenance either under sub-Section 2 of Section 12 or in Section 20 of the Act, the fact remains that there is concurrent jurisdiction the statute provides concurrent jurisdiction and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is over ruling of jurisdiction while granting maintenance in different proceedings. At the most, what is required to be considered while deciding the claim of maintenance is that amount already awarded in a previous litigation may be taken into consideration for arriving at final amount of maintenance and, thereby, if order of only additional amount is there, then there is no overlapping and if award is for maximum amount of maintenance that can be awarded then set off against amount payable under any previous proceedings is to be extended.
From Para 13,
Haresh Narayan Jaguja and Ors. Vs Namrata Haresh Jaguja and Ors on 28 April, 2015When petitioner is relying upon citations which are referred herein above and are already considered by the first appellate Court while rejecting the appeal, it would be appropriate for the petitioner herein to go through the legal provision properly. The time has come that litigants restrain themselves from agitating the issue which has already been decided by competent Court, only because they are not comfortable with the same.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Weird case disposed off by High Court of Gujarat !!!
Sections included in the FIR by police are: Sections 498-A, 509, 342, 504, 506, 427, 34 etc. of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
From Para 5 and 5.1,
At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society.
Learned advocate for the applicants states that matter is settled between the parties.
Despite it having POCSO applied, What does the below infer? It’s a screaming fake case, wherein the provisions of a penal act, were grossly and brazenly, misused by none other that the knife.
Jagruti Shashikant Soni Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2018
One good judgment from High Court of Gujarat which held that woman who allegedly has a illicit relationship with the husband of a knife is not a relative of husband in the context of 498A IPC
Twinkleben Umeshbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 4 May, 2018
A precedent is available here.
A wonderfully reasoned judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat held that accused be allowed to seek for documents that prove his innocence, if they were with prosecution/Investigating agencies and not produced in court as part of Charge sheet.
The contention of complainant’s case is quite simple that Section 91 is not applicable in facts and circumstances of the present case and that accused has no right to adduce any evidence until his statement is recorded under Section 313 of the Code.
From Para 9,
It is a settled legal position that neither the investigation agency nor the Court has to complete the investigation and trial respectively only for sake of completing it and against wrong person or without having any substantial evidence against any such persons. In other words, it is settled principle of jurisprudence that the Court has to find out nothing but the truth with reference to any dispute and charges filed before it. It is also settled legal position that pleading generally of the litigation and in particular in Criminal proceedings, where Trial Court’s decision would be disturbed in as much as it would affect the personal freedom of the individual pursuant to his conviction, the accused must be given proper and reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence. It is also well settled that for proving such innocence, accused are certainly entitled to adduce appropriate evidence which may be in their favour to prove them innocence. It is also well settled that for this purpose, the accused may not be denied either the opportunity to produce any information and evidence or to call upon the same, may be with only restriction that it must be in accordance with law and subject to following proper procedure so that other side i.e. victim, complainant, investigating agency and prosecuting agency are having reasonable opportunity to know such evidence and to rebut it if they can. In view of above settled legal position, it becomes clear that disclosure of improper sections in any application and disclosure of some information may not be in requisite form but if such information or material is otherwise relevant to the issue under consideration of the Court, then failing to disclose such information on record or to call for such information and documentary evidence from person where it is lying would result into material irregularity which may ultimately result into illegality and therefore, it is to be avoided. It is also clear that not allowing the accused to prove his case would ultimately result into bright chance of admitting his appeal against conviction and ultimately it may be required to be remanded back. Therefore, to avoid all such situations, one has to look into the rival submissions and law point at this stage only so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings of either side.
From Para 12,
The respondent is relying upon the decision in the case of Nitya Dharmananda (Supra) but unfortunately applicant wants to read only one line from such judgment which reads that ordinarily the Court produce with the chargesheet for dealing with the issue ofcharge. The reference to the decision in the case of State of Orissa V/s. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568 is not much material for the simple reason that in that case the dispute was with reference to the stage when such documents may be called upon i.e. at the stage of framing of charge or not, whereas even after referring Debednra Nath Padhi (supra) in such recent judgment Hon’ble the Supreme Court has categorically observed and held that the Court being under the obligation to impart justice and to uphold the law, is not debarred from exercising its power, if the interest of justice in a given case so requires, even if the accused may have no right to invoke Section 91 and it is further held that to exercise this power, the Court is to be satisfied that the material available with the investigator, which is not made part of the chargesheet, has crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge. It is further held that if the Court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the Court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even if documents are not a part of the chargesheet. What is considered in all such cases is there may not be mini trial at the stage of framing the charge, but facts would be different after framing of charge and more particularly, when some witnesses are in witness box, it is certainly necessary for the accused to refer certain documents and contradict such witnesses with such documents and pleadings and therefore, such documents are required to be brought on record.
Interesting tidbit:
Vijay Natvarlal Tank Vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 January, 2018Though such evidence is not to be considered at this stage, it would be appropriate to recollect that atleast one of the witness being PW no.7 has admitted that first husband of the complainant, advocate has renounced the world and two other husbands have committed suicide.
Awesome judgment from Justice J.B.PARDIWALA, at Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. Excellent analysis and dissection of cunning knife’s mind.
Funny Anecdote #1:
Establishing Jurisdiction:
The sum and substance of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife, but as usual, all other family members have been roped in as accused persons. The applicant No.2, Dipikaben, is the wife of the applicant No.1’s brother. I am told that Dipikaben is a widow and she is residing independently at Padra of District Baroda. Dipikaben has a daughter aged about 20 years. The applicant No.3 Hetalben is the niece of the applicant No.1, and is residing at her matrimonial home at Gotri. The applicant No.3 got married in the year 2006, and before her marriage, was residing at Delhi. The applicants Nos. 4 and 5 are the husband and wife, and both are residing at Delhi. The applicant No.4 is one of the brothers of the applicant No.1. The applicant No.6, who is the sister of the applicant No.1, is residing at her matrimonial home at Baroda.
Funny Anecdote #2:
Delay in filing Complaint/FIR:
It appears on a plain reading of the FIR that on her own admission, she had stayed at her matrimonial home upto the year 2004, and thereafter, she left the matrimonial home and started residing at her parental home. The respondent No.2 lodged the F.I.R after a period of four years thereafter i.e. in 2009.
Legal Point #1:
When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
One more:
Although the respondent No.2 is much more annoyed with her husband, with an obvious motive, has arrayed all the close relatives of her husband in the FIR. The Police also seems to have recorded stereo-type statements of the witnesses who are none other than the parents and other relatives of the respondent No.2 and has filed a charge-sheet.
Legal Point #3
Thus, it could be seen from the above that the apex Court has noticed the tendency of the married women roping in all the relatives of her husband in such complaints only with a view to harass all of them, though they may not be even remotely involved in the offence alleged.
One more here
Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014In all cases where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498-A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No F.I.R is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC.
Hon’ble Justice J.B.PARDIWALA in this judgment bins the vague and general allegations in the 498A case and quashed the FIR on the accused.
Funny anecdotes:
From Para 3,
It appears that the first informant holds a degree of Bachelor of Engineering.
….
I take notice of a very curious allegation in the First Information Report that the in-laws forced the daughter-in-law to do her post graduation i.e. Master of Engineering. It appears that the first informant did complete her Masters in Engineering.
….
As usual, soon after the marriage, matrimonial problems cropped up between the husband and the wife.
From Para 4,
Kumar Kamalbabu Bhatt & 2 Vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 January, 2016For some reason or the other, the first informant thought fit to take up the issue with the Police and left the matrimonial home on 3rd March, 2013. She thought fit to lodge the FIR on 11th November, 2014.
An earlier judgment from same wise judge, which he quoted in this judgment is here.
Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in this wonderful judgment, held that
it could not be said that the petitioner who is alleged to have been having an extramarital affair with the husband of the first informant since 2011, would fall within the ambit of “Relative”. Let me assume for the moment that the husband of the first informant has got married with the petitioner in February, 2014. Primafacie, the marriage is invalid. The first marriage is still in subsistence. In such circumstances, the offence under Section 498A could not be said to have been committed.
And, also IPC 494 not applicable on woman,
Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014Section 494 cannot be made applicable against the petitioner because Section 494 is an offence committed by the husband. If a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The husband is sought to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The same cannot be made applicable so far as the petitioner before me is concerned.