Hon’ble High Court of Madras has rightly held that,
From Para 10,
Admittedly in the case on hand, the 1st respondent police failed to refer the matter to the concerned District Social Welfare Officer and get a report as to whether any dowry harassment is made by the petitioners. In the absence of the adherence to such Mandatory procedures, offences of Section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be imputed.
Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held that
Therefore, there is enough material to indicate that the petitioner herein had consciously got married to said Feroz Khan with full knowledge that the marriage between the first accused and the second respondent is very much in subsistence.
And…
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of offence under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report. This decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is a clear answer to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court cannot take cognizance of both the offences under Sections 494 as well as 498 of IPC in a single proceeding. This Court rejects the contention of the petitioner that the registration of F.I.R is illegal.
Biased judiciary favoring women,
However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a woman, this Court directs that the trial magistrate shall insist on the appearance of the petitioner herein only for answering the charges and at the time of examination of witnesses under Section 313 of Cr.PC and at the time of pronouncing judgement. Except the aforesaid occasions, on other hearing dates the petitioner can be permitted to be represented through counsel.
Based on U.Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police and another, Hon’ble High Court of Madras has held that when there is no marriage, IPC 498A can not be made applicable. Hence it was removed from case and asked the lower court to complete the trial in 3 months.
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Writ Petition is allowed and the Passport Authority is ordered to re-consider the request of petitioner.
In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Writ Petition is allowed and the Passport Authority is ordered to re-consider the request of petitioner.
Hon’ble High Court of Madras in this straightforward judgment, set aside the condition to surrender the petitioner’s passport
From Para 3,
The petitioner is aggrieved against the condition made therein whereby he was directed to surrender his passport before the Court and was directed, not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
From Para 5,
The legal question as to whether the police are empowered to retain the passport of an accused under the provisions of Cr.P.C., has come time and again before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various other Courts and it has been held that the Courts exercising its power under the Cr.P.C., cannot impound the passport under the guise of seizure.
From Para 8,
The objections raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases may not be of much relevance since what would be pertinent to decide in the present petition is the powers of police to retain the passport of the petitioner. The Passport Act which is a Special law will prevail over the provisions of the Cr.p.c., the General law.
From Para 9,
Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act specifically deals with impounding of passport whereas Section 104 Cr.P.C., allows the Court to impound the document to produce before the Court. The Passport Act overrides the provision of Cr.P.C., for the purpose of impounding passport. In the present case in hand, the order directing to surrender the passport indefinitely amounts to impounding of the passport itself.
Hon’ble Madras High Court has permitted a son, who is not a advocate, to represent his sick father in a case of bail petition.
Madras High Court delivered this judgment dismissing the revision petition filed by accused to set aside a charge made against him.
20. The charge should contain the name of the offence, if the law which creates the offence gives any specific name or if no specific name is given, the definition of the offence must be stated. The law and section against which the offence is said to have been committed to be mentioned in the charge. Wherever necessary, the time and place of offence and the person against whom the offence committed should be mentioned. If necessary, the manner in which the offence committed should be mentioned. The Court while frame charge should take all endeavour that the accused against whom the charge is framed shall have sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged. The charge so framed shall not mislead the accused. The omission or error in the content of the charge shall not be material, leading to failure of justice.
The procedure to file a perjury case is detailed in this nice judgment from Madras High Court.
Here is a Madras High Court judgment delivering a Divorce decree based on Mental cruelty by Knife.
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
Bad Behavior has blocked 604 access attempts in the last 7 days.
