A single judge bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior held that, a false Statement which doesn’t affect the outcome of case can’t invoke 340 CrPC proceedings.
Kamla Sharma and Ors Vs Sukhdevlal and Ors on 18 Apr 2022Citations :
Other Sources :
High Court of MP said that, the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by the clients if the non-appearance was solely on the ground of a strike call..
From Para 6,
6. From the impugned order, it is clear that on 28.12.2021 Ranjana Chauhan (PW-18) had appeared and her examination-in-chief was recorded and in spite of various judgments passed by the Supreme Court as well as High Court, by which strike by the lawyers has been declared to be illegal, the lawyers were abstaining from work. Thereafter, at the request of the applicant, cross-examination of Ranjana Chauhan (PW-18) was deferred for the next date and on the next date, i.e., 29.12.2021 counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine her. The case was then adjourned to 11.01.2022 and on the said date also, counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine Ranjana Chauhan (PW-18). Thus, it is clear that not only, the lawyers were abstaining from work contrary to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45, but the counsel for the applicant was out and out to harass the prosecution witness Ranjana Chauhan (PW-18) as he did not cross-examine her in spite of an opportunity given by the Trial Court on 29.12.2021 and 11.01.2022.
From Para 10,
10. Thus, it is clear that the Advocates would be answerable for the consequences suffered by the clients if the non-appearance was solely on the ground of a strike call. On 28.12.2021 the prosecution witness was not cross-examined because the lawyers were abstaining from work. The Bar cannot justify its strike merely by saying that they are not on strike, but they are abstaining from work. Strike and abstaining from work is one and the same thing. In spite of the fact that the lawyers were on illegal strike by calling it as abstaining from work, the Trial Court fixed the case for the next date, i.e., 29.12.2021 for cross-examination of prosecution witness Ranjana Chauhan (PW-18). However, in spite of that, the counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine her. Thereafter, the case was again fixed for 11.01.2022 and on the said date also, counsel for the applicant did not cross-examine her.
From Para 11 and 12,
11. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since the trial involves serious disputed questions of facts and law, therefore, counsel for the applicant was required to make preparation for cross-examining the prosecution witness and, therefore, he could not cross-examine her on 11.01.2022 and further it was already 5:15 PM.
12. The submission made by the counsel for the applicant is not acceptable. The Trial is pending since 08.02.2017, i.e., the date on which the charges were framed. Even after a long five years of pendency of trial, if the counsel for the applicant has not prepared the case, then only he is to be blamed.
13. So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicant that since it was already 5:15 PM, therefore, he did not cross-examine her is concerned, it is clear from the order sheet of the Trial Court that the witness had appeared at 3:00 PM but pass over was sought by the counsel for the applicant. If the Court had accommodated the counsel by passing over the matter, then the counsel cannot make a complaint that since working hours were over, therefore, he had a right to refuse to cross-examine the witness.
From Para 14,
14. Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the counsel is ready to pay the compensation as well as expenses to the witness out of his own pocket. If the applicant has engaged a lawyer who is not serious towards his profession, then the applicant has a remedy to approach the Bar Council and if the counsel for the applicant was working as per the instructions of the applicant, then the applicant cannot run away from his liability of not cross-examining the prosecution witness Ranjana Chauhan on 28.12.2021, 29.12.2021 and 11.01.2022.
From Para 16,
Vipin Rajput Vs State of MP on 13 Apr 202216. However, liberty is granted to the applicant that in case, if his counsel had acted contrary to his instructions and did not cross-examine the witness in spite of his clear instructions, then he shall have a remedy of filing a civil suit for claiming compensation. He shall also have a remedy to approach the Bar Council against his local counsel for abstaining from work in spite of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra).
Citations :
Other Sources :
Two vital and interesting legal questions of interpretation have reached a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High court.
On 09 Jun 2021,
The Court framed the questions that need determination
Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 09 Jun 2021(1) As to whether the provision of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be invoked by accused alleging improper/delayed investigation or not ?
(2) As to whether the provision of Section 161 Cr.P.C. providing for examination of witnesses by the police can include examination of accused also or not, only for the purpose of ascertaining the truth and not for recording confession ?
On 24 Jun 2021,
Noting from the submissions of the rival counsels, the Bench held that there are conflicting decision from the Supreme Court on the legal points for determination and so opened up the questions to the entire Bar and sought assistance from the Bar Association.
Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 24 Jun 2021On first week of Aug 2021,
On 2021-03-26
It was ordered that for mental checkup be done for the accused-Advocate through a qualified Doctor or a psychiatrist and submit report before this Court.
Vijaysingh Yadav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 26 Mar 2021After overcoming getting himself enrolled with MP Bar Council here, this advocate was cleared to appear for AIBE exam at Gwalior examination center.
Brajmohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of India on 05 Jan 2021MP High Court held that, a person who is not convicted but merely accused cannot be denied entry into the State Bar Council rolls.
Braj Mohan Mahajan Vs Bar Council of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 11 Sep 2018Citation :
Other Sources :
Later on, this advocate had trouble with AIBE exam also here.
Even though the MP High Court held the law point correctly, IMHO, the said FIR which was saved by this Court, has no future, unless it was treated as a FIR registered u/s 154 CrPC, which is what the case is here.
From Para 15 16
Zaid Pathan and Ors Vs State of M.P. on 22 Dec 202015/ The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that as per the procedure prescribed in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., for the purpose of the offence under Section 188 of the IPC a public servant is required to file a complaint before the competent court and, therefore, the FIR cannot be registered.
16/ Such an argument advanced by counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any merit. A bare reading of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. reveals that the provisions contained in the sub-section are attracted at the stage of taking cognizance. There is no bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of registration of FIR, therefore, FIR for an offence under Section 188 of the IPC can be registered by the police and after investigation on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, a competent public servant can file the complaint before the concerned court. What is barred under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is that after investigating the offence under Section 188 of the IPC, the police officer cannot file a final report in the Court and the Court cannot take cognizance on that final report, as at that stage the bar contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. comes
into operation.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/zaid-pathan-and-others-vs-state-of-m-p
High Court of Madhya Pradesh held illegal the acts of Notaries in the State, as follows.
Mukesh @ Lakshminarayan Vs State of M.P. on 31 Dec 2020Not only the accused persons who have conspired in performing the forged marriage of the complainant, but the Notary who executed the marriage agreement is also equally responsible in this case. The job of the Notary is defined under the Notary Act. He is not supposed to perform the marriage by executing documents. Had he properly guided and refused to execute the marriage agreement to the complainant, then the present offence would not have been committed. This Court is repeatedly receiving the cases of forged marriage performed by the Notary, therefore, the Law Department of the State is required to look into these matters as to how the Notaries and Oath Commissioners are involving themselves in executing the document in respect of the marriage, divorce, etc, which are not permissible under the law. Neither the Notary is authorised to perform the marriage nor competent to execute the divorce deed. Therefore, strict guidelines are required to be issued to the Notaries and oath commissioners for not executing such type of deed, failing which their licence would be terminated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Law Department of State of M.P. For taking action in the matter.
Citations :
Other sources :
In this wonderful Order from 1-judge Gwalior bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was held that parading suspects in the media/public is violative of Article 21 and the concerned officers are liable for the violation of fundamental rights including compensation.
Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Nov 2020Here is the Final Judgment… Some snippets follow…
From Paras 21, 22 and 23,
21. The Counsel for the State also could not point out as to how, the respondent no. 3 could have taken cognizance of the complaint made by the landlady. From the plain reading of the application, it is clear that She had prayed for recovery of arrears of rent as well as for eviction of the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination, the complaint filed made by the landlady can be said to have disclosed cognizable offence. Even a non-cognizable offence was not disclosed in the complaint. The entire complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of the police authorities but still cognizance of the same was taken.
22. When a specific question was put to Shri Amit Sanghi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, that whether it is the official duty of the police to get the shops vacated without there being any orders of the Court, then it was rightly admitted by Shri Amit Sanghi, Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, that the police has no authority whatsoever under any law, to evict the tenants from the tenanted premises and the eviction can take place only under the decree of eviction issued by the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, it is submitted by Shri Sanghi, that the incident of 25-7-2020 took place
prior to his posting in Gwalior. Even the respondent no.3, in his return has categorically stated that the matter of eviction is a civil matter and police has no jurisdiction.23. Although the Counsel for the respondent no. 4 relied upon Section 23 of Police Act, but as a departmental enquiry is pending against the respondents no. 3 to 5, therefore, only undisputed facts and the stand taken by the respondents as well as the preliminary enquiry reports are being considered for deciding this petition. However, it is not out of place to mention here, that now the respondents no. 3 to 5 are involved in mud-sledging on each other, thereby placing certain documents on record, which were suppressed by the respondents no. 1 and 2.
From Para 24,
24. It is the case of the respondent no. 4 that it was the respondent no. 3, who had directed her to enquire the complaint made by the landlady, whereas it is the case of the respondent no. 3, that the copy of the complaint was given to him by respondent no. 4, only when he returned back to the police station at 16:00 and the endorsement made on the application thereby, directing the respondent no. 4 to enquire, does not bear his signatures. However, the return of the respondent no. 3 is beautifully silent as to whether such endorsement is in his handwriting or not? In para 8 of the return, the respondent no. 3 has pleaded that as per routine procedure when any complaint is submitted in Police Station, it is registered in Complaint register and is placed by the Police Station Munshi before the respondent no.3. Although it is the contention of the respondent no. 3 that he was
given the said application by the respondent no.4, only after he came back to the police station at 16:00, but his return is completely silent as to why he did not ask the respondent no. 4, that under whose authority, the endorsement of entrusting enquiry to the respondent no. 4 was written. In absence of such pleadings, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent no.3, and it is held that endorsement made on the application dated 25-7-2020 made by the landlady is in the handwriting of the respondent no.3 and it was the respondent no.3 who had entrusted the enquiry to the respondent no.
Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Dec 2020
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/19697017/
No Shared household hence no DVC.
Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70402378/
The index page is here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 369 access attempts in the last 7 days.
