Knife deserted husband for 5 years without reasonable cause and then lied to Court. Judicial Separation granted by Family Court is converted to Divorce and relief given to husband permanently.
Santosh Kumar Vs Asha Budakoti on 13 June, 2013Citations: [2014 DMC UTTA 3 524], [2014 UC 2 1190], [2013 SCC ONLINE UTT 1643]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b49503607dba348f010a76
Wonderful Judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand, wherein it was held that Filing of False Affidavit is perjury and in this case it was done by a Advocate. A cost of 2 Lakhs was levied.
From Para 11,
A perusal of the criminal misc. application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would reveal that the applicant has annexed some papers of case diary (Annexure 2 to the application) without disclosing the fact that from where he had obtained the papers of case diary which are confidential papers prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation. It is surprising to note here that the applicant never appeared before the court below after submission of charge sheet and the trial court has also not passed orders under Section 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C. to supply the documents to the applicant. Since the court below has never supplied the papers of the case diary to the applicant as provided under Section 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. it is quite surprising how the applicant has annexed the papers of the case diary before this Court.
From Para 20,
Applicant before this Court is a practicing Advocate. He has himself stated so in para 8 of the present application – that the applicant is an Advocate and a public spirited person, a resident of Haldwani. Applicant has verified the contents of paragraph no. 5 of the criminal misc. application on the basis of record. However, no document has been placed on record to show that on the basis of which record or document, the averments were made in paragraph no. 5 of the criminal misc. application. However, the averment itself is false as the complainant is a member of Scheduled Tribe community and certificate to this effect has been issued to him by the competent authority. Thus it is a proven fact on record that contents of paragraph no. 5 of the application are false and misleading and were made to commit fraud upon the Court.
Chandra Shekhar Kargeti Vs State of Uttakhand on 8 August, 2018
Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has held in this criminal revision that mens rea, intention to do a crime, is sine-qua-non, meaning essential in IPC 306 case. Finding no such intention from the case documents looked into by Sessions Court after which it had slapped charges on the revisionist.
Finally,
Narendra Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 March, 2018In the present case, allegation against the revisionist is that he used to threaten the deceased by pointing out his forgery at the time of purchase of motorcycle. Revisionist used to remind the deceased about the fraud committed by him. Further, threatening was given to the deceased for implicating him for his illegal act. Whether, at the time of giving such threat, accused/revisionist had an intention to compel the deceased to commit suicide? It cannot be said that any such mens rea was there. Pointing out one’s illegal act cannot be said an act of abetting to commit suicide. At the most his intention could be to blackmail the deceased. No doubt, the deceased was under the stress. Reason was fake documents used by him while purchasing the motorcycle. His guilty consciousness was also the reason of his suicide.
Apex Court Judgments cited in this judgment are
Bad Behavior has blocked 840 access attempts in the last 7 days.
