After a long and exhausting prosecution for false allegations and claims in Indian Courts (making good use of remedies available against/with Police and Courts) resulting in favorable decisions, you may want to make good of the following remedies available in law across various forums.
Civil-side Remedies (SEEKING COMPENSATION from the malicious prosecutor)
SEEKING COMPENSATION from the malicious prosecutor:
- Those (accused persons) who were maliciously prosecuted for alleged criminal offences, can seek Compensation for accusation without reasonable cause u/s 250 CrPC.
- Those (accused persons) who were maliciously arrested for alleged criminal offences, can seek Compensation (maximum of Rs.1000/-) for accusation without reasonable cause u/s 358 CrPC.
- Those who were forced to litigate frivolous Transfer petitions at Supreme Court, can seek Compensation (maximum of Rs.1000/-) u/s 406(3) CrPC.
- Those who were forced to litigate frivolous Transfer petitions at High Court, can seek Compensation (maximum of Rs.1000/-) u/s 407(7) CrPC.
- Those who were forced to litigate frivolous Transfer petitions at Sessions Court, can seek Compensation (maximum of Rs.1000/-) u/s 408(3) CrPC.
SEEKING PUNISHMENT for the malicious prosecutor:
- Those who were put to disadvantage by taking of bribes by public servants (including Police, Magistrates and Judges), can get a FIR registered under CHAPTER III Offences of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
- Police Officers can be proceeded against under section 167 IPC for registering a false FIR or Charge sheet. Punishment is same as 498A IPC. 🙂
- Police Officers have to register a complaint against those who gave them false information, when the police file a charge sheet wherein from their investigation, either persons were removed/not charged in Charge sheet or certain sections were removed under section 182 or 211 IPC. Section 340 CrPC applies to these sections so the person who was listed in the FIR cannot himself file the complaint with Court but he can ask (via a simple letter to IO, then local SP/CP, then DGP; followed by couple of RTIs seeking progress/action taken at each stage). Since there is a time limit imposed on filing such complaint by Police (as per section 468 CrPC), it is better to act fast once the IO makes any removals from charge sheet. Of course, in appropriate case, sec 5 of Limitation Act can also be invoked
- Judicial Officers can be proceeded against under sections 217, 218, 219, 220 of IPC. No need of any 340 CrPC application for these offences. Direct Police complaint.
- Defamation u/s 499/500 IPC case laws here.
Remedies under Writ Jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court
- Under Writ of Mandamus, the affected person can claim compensation against the offender, over and above what is granted by statutory provisions.
- Classic case of Sri Nambi Narayanan here.
After Ex Gratia Law Journal’s 1st Judgement Writing Competition 2020 here, I participated in this Judgement Writing Competition here with my partners Yashika Bhartia [idea of 46(3) Cr.P.C. and initial discussions] and Swathi Pudipeddi [Drafting, Research and multiple reviews of the Draft PIL Petition] and here is the problem statement.Guildelines, PIL drafting competition
Here is the PIL I wrote. It is password-protected to prevent misuse like plagiarism. If you want to read it, contact me for password.PIL Draft, Team Code _ T-60 for Sharing purpose
Getting ready for next competition here.
After GITAM Moot competition here, I participated in this Judgement Writing Competition here with my partner Yashika Bhartia and here is the problem statement.1st-Judgement-Writing-Competition-Proposition
My Team won First place. The results announcement is here.
In case the page is kaput, below is the screenshot from that page.
Here is the Judgment I wrote. It is password-protected to prevent misuse like plagiarism. If you want to read it, contact me for password.Team JW04 for Sharing purpose (PW Protected)
Next, I participated in PIL Drafting Competition on Constitution Day 2020 by NLIU LAC here.
The following is a table listing granting and withdrawing of their ‘General Consent’ Granted To CBI To Investigate Cases In The State.
Some State governments innocently think by withdrawing ‘General Consent’ Granted To CBI To Investigate Cases In The State, they can stop CBI. Fools !!! Here why.
|State / Union Territory||Consent Granted on||Consent Withdrawn on|
|Andhra Pradesh||3 Aug 2018
6 Jun 2019
|16 Nov 2018 (Confidential GO)
|Chhattisgarh||2001||10 Jan 2019|
5 Nov 2020
|Kerala||4 Nov 2020|
|Maharashtra||21 Oct 2020|
|Punjab||6 Nov 2020|
|Rajasthan||19 Sep 2020|
|Andaman and Nicobar Islands|
|Dadra Nagar Haveli and Daman Diu|
|Jammu and Kashmir|
On 6 Jun 2019, Andhra Pradesh granted General Consent.03082018HO_MS109
On 16 Nov 2018, Andhra Pradesh withdrew General Consent.
(Via Confidential GO and a Gazette notification)2018-11-20 Withdrawal of General consent given to the members of CBI Gaz
On 3 Aug 2018, Andhra Pradesh granted General Consent.2018-08-03 03082018HO_MS109 General consent given to the members of CBI
On 5 Dec 2017, Andhra Pradesh granted General Consent.2017-12-05 2017HO_MS184 General consent given to the members of CBI
On 10 Jan 2019, Chattisgarh withdrew General Consent.2019-01-10 Chattishgarh withdraws General Consent
On 5 Nov 2020, Jharkhand withdrew General Consent.Jharkhand withdraws General Consent
On 4 Nov 2020, Kerala withdrew General Consent.2020-11-04 Kerala withdraws General Consent
On 21 Oct 2020, Maharashtra withdrew General Consent.2020-10-21 Maharashtra withdraws General Consent
On 19 Sep 2020, Rajasthan withdrew General Consent.2020-07-19 Rajasthan withdraws General Consent
On 6 Nov 2020, Punjab withdrew General Consent.Final_Gazette_Report
Public Trust Doctrine:
Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjust to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes.
The following are my learnings while working with advocates. Some taught me Dos and some Don’ts. Take it as you like.
- Start using eCourts app and learn to find more information from High Court websites, if not found on eCourts platform (app and website)
- Discuss your priorities and expectations from the case, in clear terms. Better safe than sorry.
- Ask/find and record/save alternate means of communicating with your Advocate. Office Address, Alternate contact numbers, Colleague in his Chambers, Email etc.,
- Learn the Law and the court procedure involved in the instant case thoroughly. It helps pacify unwarranted fears to some extent.
- Most petitions are available in/near Court premises and sold at retail price. No need to shell out 1000’s for these forms.
- Ensure ALL your payments to Advocate are made digitally. This is solid evidence against unpleasant disputes
- In Criminal Trials, Electronic Evidences in their Original devices need not be shared with advocates at the beginning itself. A set of copies will do for perusal and any drafting. There is stage later on when Evidence needs to be brought on record of Court supported by a certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
- Ask them to read (a) All Protection from Police here and (b) All Reliefs from Judiciary here. hehe
- Above tip not working? Want to discontinue the services of current advocate? Communicate on email, phone clearly your intent and ask for NOC (No Objection Certificate). This is NOT a rule but a unwritten practice, so avoid complications between advocates due to clients. NOC is nothing but Vakalath/Vakalathnama on the sleeve/side of which Advocate writes, ‘No objection to engage another advocate’, along with Name, Signature, Enrollment number and date. Simple!
The following are list of judgments that you can cite while seeking Exemption from Personal Appearance in Court proceedings.
- In Sukla Mukherjee Vs State on 13 Dec 1994, Calcutta High Court said 205 CrPC applies to warrants cases also like 498A IPC.
- In MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001, Supreme Court says,
- 17. Thus, in appropriate cases the magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel. The magistrate is empowered to record the plea of the accused even when his counsel makes such plea on behalf of the accused in a case where the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with. Section 317 of the Code has to be viewed in the above perspective as it empowers the court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused (provided he is represented by a counsel in that case) even for proceeding with the further steps in the case. However, one precaution which the court should take in such a situation is that the said benefit need be granted only to an accused who gives an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, and that a counsel on his behalf would be present in court and that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. This precaution is necessary for the further progress of the proceedings including examination of the witnesses.
- In Sri Pritam Sen Vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 October, 2001, Calcutta High Court says, “the learned Magistrate, in the fitness of the things, should not have Issued warrant against the petitioner at the first Instance without assigning any reason in compliance with provisions laid down in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
- In Md. Naim @ Md. Naimuddin Vs. State of Bihar and Ors on 08 Dec 2006, Patna High Court said 205 CrPC applies to warrants cases also like 498A IPC.
- In the landmark Rajesh Sharma & ors. Vs State of UP and Anr on 27 July 2017 judgment, Supreme Court held that personal exemption to be granted to accused who are residing in outstation locations.
- In Sri Rameshwar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2018, Supreme Court granted Exemption from Personal Appearance to parents of Arnesh kumar.
- In Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited on 25 September 2015, Madras High Court says, “a Magistrate can dispense with appearance of accused in a criminal case on first appearance itself, if accused is represented by an Advocate and supported by reasonable excuse.”
- In Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017
- Puneet Dalmia Vs CBI Hyderabad on 16 December 2019
Here are the websites of Police Departments belonging to various States and Union Territories in India. You will find option on these sites to view/download FIRs. In some sites, you have facility to lodge online complaint/FIR too.
- Andhra Pradesh Police
- Arunachal Pradesh Police
- Assam Police
- Bihar Police
- Chhattisgarh Police
- Goa Police
- Gujarat Police
- Haryana Police
- Himachal Pradesh Police
- Jharkhand Police
- Karnataka Police
- Kerala Police
- Madhya Pradesh Police
- Maharashtra Police
- Manipur Police
- Meghalaya Police
- Mizoram Police
- Nagaland Police
- Odisha Police
- Punjab Police
- Rajasthan Police
- Sikkim Police
- Tamil Nadu Police
- Telangana Police
- Tripura Police
- Uttar Pradesh Police
- Uttarakhand Police
- West Bengal Police
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Chandigarh Police
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
- Delhi Police
- Jammu and Kashmir Police
- Lakshadweep Police
- Puducherry Police