Anshu Gupta Vs Adwait Anand on 09 Aug 2023

Posted on August 31, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge from High Court of Uttarakhand passed this Judgment declaring that mother is also liable to pay maintenance to minor child. Interesting…

From Paras 17-22,

17. The provisions of Section 125 (1) Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the liability to maintain a minor child is always on “any person”, if he has sufficient means neglects and refuses to maintain a minor child and such “person” is directed to give the monthly allowance as maintenance at the rate deemed fit to the Magistrate.
18. “The person” word denotes not only the male but a female gender and it cannot be said that such person can only qualify father and not the mother. Section 2 (y) of Cr.P.C. provides as under:- “(y) words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code. ”
19. According to Section 2(y) of Cr.P.C., the words and expressions used in the Cr.P.C. but have not been defined in the Cr.P.C., shall have the same meanings assigned to them as defined in the Indian Penal Code. Section 8 of IPC is quoted hereunder:- “8. Gender.—The pronoun “he” and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female.”
20. This definition of gender gives an indication that “he” and its derivatives are used of any person whether male or female.
21. Under Section 11 of the IPC, the “person” has also been defined, which includes any company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
22. From the meticulous examination of these words having been defined in the Indian Penal Code, it can safely be inferred that any “person” use in the provisions of section 125(1) Cr.P.C. includes both mother and father.

From Para 25,

25. It is clear from the aforesaid sub-Section (2) of Section 126 Cr.P.C. that there is no such word “father” or “husband” in the aforesaid sub-section, as it was there in the old Cr.P.C. Section 488 sub-Section (6). Now, in place of “father” or “husband”, “person” has been incorporated and it is provided that “all evidence to such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made……….” Thus, this case law is also of no help to the revisionist and the same is distinguished by this Court on the aforesaid reasons.

Finally from Para 28,

28. The provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. has already been changed, as discussed above and according to the language of the present Section 125 Cr.P.C., in the opinion of this Court “person” would include both male and female and in reference to a minor child whether legitimate or illegitimate mother or father having sufficient means if neglects and refuses to maintain such minor child would be held liable to pay the maintenance of such child.

Anshu Gupta Vs Adwait Anand on 09 Aug 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Jitender Yadav Vs Union of India

Posted on November 21, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Court-1 division bench of Uttarakhand High Court passed these directions regarding to handling of plastic solid waste by the producers, importers and sellers in the State.

Order Dt: 07-Jul-2022

From Paras 15-17,

15. We direct the respondent Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board to state, on affidavit, as to how many manufacturers, brand owners or importers, have registered themselves with the said Board in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules. They should also indicate the particulars of those producers, importers, and brand owners, who have not sought registration and complied with their obligation under the said Rules, and who are manufacturing plastic products/raw materials or are importing into the State, or selling their brand of goods within the State of Uttarakhand, while using non-biodegradable plastic.
16. We also direct that those producers, importers and brand owners, who do not register with the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board within the next fifteen days, shall not be permitted to either produce, or import into the State of Uttarakhand, or sell products of their brands, in the State of Uttarakhand, and the State shall ensure that all such products, which are contained in plastic sachets or pouches or packaging, are not permitted to enter the boundary of the State, or sold, in any manner whatsoever. Wide publicity shall be given to these directions by the State, so that all concerned have notice of it.
17. Since the primary responsibility for collection of used multi-layered plastic, sachets, or pouches, or packaging is of the producers, importers and brand owners, and it is their obligation to prepare their plan for collection and to submit the same to the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board while applying for consent, the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board shall also require all producers, importers and brand owners to strictly comply with this requirement. The affidavit to be filed by the Uttarakhand State Pollution Control Board should also indicate as to how many producers, importers and brand owners have provided the said plans, and those producers, importers and brand owners, who do not provide their plans for collection in the next 15 days, shall not be permitted to either produce, import or sell their brands, in the State of Uttarakhand, in plastic receptacles.

Jitender Yadav Vs Union of India on 07 Jul 2022

Order Dt: 19-Oct-2022

From Paras 6-9

6. Till date, the Commissioners have not filed their respective affidavits disclosing as to what steps they have taken to monitor the working of the District Magistrates in the discharge of their obligations. What we find from the various affidavits filed before us is that the various authorities, including the State Level Monitoring Committee, have been issuing paper directions to authorities subordinate to them, particularly to the Urban Local Bodies, and the District Magistrates. However, there is no monitoring of the directions being issued, let to find out whether they are being implemented.
7. We make it clear that mere issuance of such directions on paper by the higher authorities cannot be considered as discharge by them of their respective obligations, as it falls on them to ensure that their directions are complied with. It is necessary that the higher authorities monitor the implementation of the directions issued by them, by calling for actual reports, and by undertaking site visits and ground surveys. However, that does not appear to have been resorted to at all. The issues we are confronted with cannot be resolved merely by sitting in a closed office room.
8. We direct the Commissioner, Kumaun and Commissioner, Garhwal, to hit the ground with the respective District Magistrates falling within their respective jurisdiction, and to make ground surveys, town by town and village by village, to ensure that Solid Waste Management is implemented in true letter and spirit. Compliance affidavits shall be filed by the Commissioner, Kumaun and Commissioner, Garhwal before the next date, failing which they shall remain present in Court to explain their non-compliance of our directions.
9. We direct the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to create an E-mail ID, namely [email protected], which shall be open to the public at large to send their complaints regarding the solid waste, which is collected and not removed in any part of the State, be it within municipal limits, or in rural/forest areas. On the said E-mail ID, only complaints regarding solid waste, of whatever kind, would be entertained. Along with the complaint, the complainant should also upload the photographs to show the collection/ non-disposal of solid waste, clearly identifying its location. The complainant should clearly provide his/her identity and contact details. The complaints, which are received, shall be perused by the Registrar (Judicial) after 05:00 P.M. every day. These complaints shall be printed out, provided they relate to issues regarding solid waste in the State, and not otherwise. The complaints, as received, shall also be forwarded to the respective Commissioners of Kumaun and Garhwal electronically on their respective E-mail IDs, depending on whether the complaint relates to Kumaun or Garhwal region. It shall be the responsibility of the respective Commissioners to then have the complaints actioned. The Commissioners shall revert within two working days of the complaints being forwarded by the Registrar (Judicial) to inform as to what steps have been taken in respect of the complaints so received.
10. We direct the State to circulate the aforesaid Email ID in the entire State by publishing the same in daily newspapers and local Doordarshan channels, and encouraging the people to log their complaints with necessary particulars. All the District Magistrates are also directed to ensure the circulation of the said E-mail ID within their respective districts.

Jitender Yadav Vs Union of India on 19 Oct 2022

Commercial Toyota Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr on 31 Jul 2019

Posted on April 9, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge bench at Uttarakhand High Court held that non-filing of supporting affidavit in a 156(3) CrPC application, seeking registration of a FIR, is a curable defect and Magistrate may ask the petitioner to file the affidavit before initiating proceedings in the said application.

From Para 10,

10. The main controversy, which is being raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, was the necessity to file an application under Section 156(3), which has had to be supported by an affidavit as it has been provided by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava’s matter (supra). The said judgment had a very laudable purpose and object to be achieved that the invocation of Section 156(3), should not be made by the applicant to adopt it as a matter of drawing a farce proceeding against the accused person or for vengeance of personal grievances. The intention and purpose which the judgment wanted to postulate to be adhere to by the Magistrates before whom the applications are filed for taking cognizance of the offence complained of invoking Section 156(3) has had to have an assurance that the factual narration of fact given in the application attaches a sanctity to it and is not based on a frivolous set of allegations. That is why the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that when the application under Section 156(3) is considered by the Court that its the Magistrate concerned, it also castes a duty on the Magistrate himself to ensure that the application preferred under Section 156(3) is authentic and genuine and in order to attach that authenticity, it has been laid down that the application has to be supported with an affidavit.

From Para 12,

12. The very observation made in paragraph 30 (as quoted above) of the judgment of the Priyanka Srivastava’s case (supra) where a responsibility has been shouldered on the Magistrate with regards to the propriety of the application to be supported by an affidavit, i.e. the stage when the proceedings are initiated that in itself makes the defect of the application being supported by an affidavit as to be curable in nature because if an application is not supported by an affidavit and is rejected, it may in a particular circumstance result into depriving of a right of a citizen to invoke the proceedings of Section 156(3) and in these circumstances the Court or the Magistrate can always direct the applicant to file an affidavit in support of his application under Section 156(3) so as to make it maintainable before the Court. If that defect of application under Section 156(3) not being supported with affidavit, is made as an uncurable, it may at times in some cases be giving superior hard to the Magistrate to deprive the applicant of filing application under Section 156(3) by rejecting the same on this procedural ground itself.

From Para 13,

13. In the present case a very peculiar circumstance has emerged the peculiarity is that the revisional court has remitted the matter back to the Trial Court to decide the application afresh. Deciding afresh would mean its at an stage of inception and consideration of the proceedings right from its initial stage, as if it is being entertained for the first time. On revival of the proceedings the Court can always in the light and the spirit enunciated in paragraph 30 of the judgment can direct the applicant (revisionist herein) to support his application along with an affidavit to make it entertainable before the Magistrate concerned. Hence, this Court is of the view that filing of an affidavit in support of Section 156(3) application is curable, in the light and spirit of the observation made in paragraph 30 of the Judgment of Priyanka Srivastava’s case (supra).

Commercial Toyota Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr on 31 Jul 2019

Citations: [2019 SCC ONLINE UTT 749]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d919982714d587fe94d9e28

Utt HC | Non-filing of affidavit along with the application under S. 156(3) of CrPC held to be a curable defect

Santosh Kumar Vs Asha Budakoti on 13 June, 2013

Posted on January 8, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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, 2013

Citations: [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

Chandra Shekhar Kargeti Vs State of Uttakhand on 8 August, 2018

Posted on August 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Narendra Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 March, 2018

Posted on July 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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,

In 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.

Narendra Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 March, 2018

Apex Court Judgments cited in this judgment are

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Uttarakhand Judgment or Order or Notification

Anshu Gupta Vs Adwait Anand on 09 Aug 2023

Jitender Yadav Vs Union of India

Commercial Toyota Vs State of Uttarakhand and Anr on 31 Jul 2019

Santosh Kumar Vs Asha Budakoti on 13 June, 2013

Chandra Shekhar Kargeti Vs State of Uttakhand on 8 August, 2018

Narendra Singh Vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 9 March, 2018