In this false DV case, Justice JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, discussed two contentions but adjudicated only on one aspect.
The Supreme Court crushed this judgment here and quashed the false DV case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cc473859eff43397d6ab68f
The Index of these cases is here.
Based on landmark judgments here, here and here, Karnataka High Court held that,
Citations: [2011 KCCR 1 230], [2008 SCC ONLINE KAR 758]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56093e42e4b0149711231bf9
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
No Shared household. DVC is not maintainable.
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70402378/
The index page is here.
This judgment from High Court of Karnataka says,
“it is incumbent on the Court to state reasons with reference to the material on record on which reliance is placed by the Court to formulate an opinion, to reject the application for discharge”.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link:
Earlier Judgment is available here.
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
This in the judgment of Karnataka High Court on a Tax matter.
Key passage is this one:
But we wish to add that although a decision of another High Court is not binding on this court, we see no reason for not accepting, with respectful caution, any help they can give in the elucidation of questions which arise before this court.
Citation: [(1985) 151 ITR 48 (KAR)]
External Link: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/375809/patil-vijaykumar-vs-union-india
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
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that needs and aspirations of Children are to be taken into consideration while deciding custody of the child. Custody given to father as the child wants to stay in India and live with her father.
[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”]
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, based on Preeti Gupta judgment here, held that the Dowry proceedings (u/s 498A IPC) against Mother-in-law are false and motivated, hence quashed same. God know if any sou moto perjury proceedings initiated or not on the false-case filing daughter-in-law!!
Citations: [2018 SCC OnLine Kar 1820],
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162793182/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5bebe8c39eff4376dc966c50
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that not every cruelty attracts IPC 498A especially in the absence of a harassment/demand for same.
From Para 14,
Assuming for the purpose of argument that the evidence on record as referred to by the learned Sessions Judge indicated that the appellant was beating the deceased under intoxication of liquor, there is no indication that such beating was with a view to force the deceased either to commit suicide or to cause grievous injury to her life, limb or health. It is not the say of any of the witnesses that the deceased at any point of time attempted to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself. Therefore, the torture of physical beating by the appellant as spoken to by the witnesses cannot be treated as ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 498-A to find him guilty for the said charge.
Read the Para 16 too. It nails the prosecution case.
The landmark judgment of High Court of Bombay is available here.
Another beautiful judgment from High Court of Karnataka in this revision petition on Discharge dismissal.
From Para 10,
I have perused the said statements dated 10.07.2011, namely Sangondeppa Siddappa Hulagabal, the statement Sangondeppa Ningondeppa Lesappagol, Shrishail Basappa Gundagi, Kallappa Beerappa Dafedar, Mallappa Mahadev Baligar, Tammanna Beerappa Jakkannavar and Ningappa Siddappa Layannavar. Looking to all these statement of said witnesses, they are all dated 10.07.2011. Looking to the statement of these witnesses wherein they have stated that it is alleged before them by the complainant and her father that accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the husband of the complainant, her father-in-law and her mother-in-law were giving ill-treatment and harassment to her. So in the statement of all these witnesses absolutely there is no reference so far as the present petitioners- accused Nos.4 and 5 stating that they also giving such ill- treatment. The statement of these witnesses completely silent about the involvement of petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, looking to the statement of these witnesses it clearly goes to show that absolutely there is no allegation and even there is no statement of such witnesses that they were informed by either complainant or her father about the ill-treatment given by the present petitioners herein. When i.e. so it assumes importance whether really the prosecution placed prima facie material so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Looking to the decisions relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners which are referred above at Sl.Nos.1 to 4 principles laid down in the said decisions also goes to show that the proceedings against the accused person should not be as an abuse of process of the Court or by making false allegations. But here, it is do doubt true as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that in the beginning of the complaint there are some allegation even against petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5, but the same is not corroborated by the statement of independent witnesses about whose statements I have made the reference. Therefore, reading the entire charge sheet material and the principles in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it goes to show that there is no prima facie material so far as the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are concerned. The trial court while considering the application seeking discharge from the proceedings ought to have considered these aspects, which is not done by the trial court. The trial court wrongly comes to the conclusion that even there is prima facie case as against petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5. Therefore, the order passed by the court below suffers from legal infirmity. Therefore, it will not sustain in law.
This is the quash judgment from hon’ble high court of Karnataka, relying on Y Abhraham Ajith case, wherein it was held that when all allegations are stated to have happened at Vellore, Tamilnadu, Indiranagar police doesn’t have jurisdiction to file the FIR in Bengaluru, Karnataka.
Bad Behavior has blocked 603 access attempts in the last 7 days.
