This quash judgment from hon’ble high court of patna which held that there was no jurisdiction for Magistrate in Dharbhanga to prosecute the husband for 498A, whereas all the alleged offences occured in Hyderabad. Moreover there was a decree of divorce granted 2 years before instituting the 498A case!!Vishnu Mohan Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017
Hon’ble High Court of Patna held that there is no material against the petitioner to prosecute under 498A/34, 379/34, 494 IPC and 3 of the D.P.Act, hence all proceedings are quashed.Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
This is a Quash judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Patna, based on no jurisdiction to the concerned court to make enquiry and trial in the present matter.
Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017
Having gone through the rival contentions of both sides and on perusal of record especially the complaint petition, the Court finds that the place of occurrence is not mentioned in any of the pragraphs of the complaint rather one paragraph discloses that on 04.09.2010, she was assaulted by all accused persons at Vadodra but wrongly spelt as Barauda. Even the addresses of the accused persons mentioned in the complaint is of Gujarat and there is no allegation that any demand or torture was committed at the parental home of the complainant situated at Nawada. Ordinarily place of enquiry and trial is held by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Sections 177, 178 and 179 Cr.P.C. deal with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts relating to enquiries and trials.
Another gem of a judgment this time from Hon’ble Patna High Court. No DV Case maintainable after 1 year of alleged offence of Domestic Violence.
Santosh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 6 October, 2017
Citation: 2018 CRI.L.J.1553
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82100178/
[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 Patna High Court delivered this judgment finding that Grave suspicion exists against the accused hence his S227 CrPC application is rejected.Amar Kumar @ Guddu vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 April, 2014
This Patna High Court judgment highlights that illegal detention of accused is a violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Md. Barik vs The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Bihar on 2 June, 2016
Thus, the detention of the petitioner being per se illegal and without jurisdiction. It would be violated of its constitutional rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
This is a wonderful judgment explaining the imprisonment of accused who fails to make the maintenance payments to Knife under Sec 125(3) of CrPC.
Noticing the peculiar situation where virtually the petitioner has been made to serve life sentence and the insensitivity of the Judge in the matter, we called for the lower Court records to examine for ourselves the facts because if what is being said by the Principal Judge, Family Court is to be accepted then the petitioner would virtually be serving a life sentence with no remission possible.
What is more scandalous is, as will be shown, petitioner has been kept in prison mechanically and that too for months even without any order of remand by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court.
The Code itself provides by Section 421 for warrant for levy of fine….
… A reference to Section 421 and the proviso would show that it clearly prohibits a person to be imprisoned in execution of warrant levying fine which would simply for recovery of the maintenance and, thus, there is no scope for issuance of any distress warrant for detaining a defaulter husband.
For the purposes of sentencing, the Code has provision in terms of Sections 29 and 30 thereof but the question remains that can there be a sentence straightway upon default being shown. In our view, no.
Unfortunately, in total disregard to the binding precedent, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court proceeded. The result is that the petitioner is being detained in custody ad infinitum which is against the statutory provisions.
Again, this is significant inasmuch as the maintenance being a monthly payment, for each month’s default, defaulter can be sentenced for a month’s imprisonment.
As seen above, the maintenance is to be fixed on monthly basis. The sentence has, accordingly, been limited to a month maximum for each breach.
We, therefore, hold that the detention of the petitioner cannot be justified and is contrary to the scheme as provided under Section 125 (3) of the Code. We have no option accordingly but to direct the immediate release of the petitioner, while quashing the order committing the petitioner to custody and subsequent orders of remand. The writ application is allowed.
Laljee Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011
Patna High Court delivered this judgment based on the mental cruelty the Knife levelled on the husband.
A variety of instances to establish mental cruelty by Knife were vividly brought out in this case.
- Frivolous Allegation on Mother in Law of having illicit relations
- Trying to separate Son from his family
- Threatening to commit suicide, if demands are not met
In Para 6,
Appellant/wife levelled frivolous and bald allegation against his mother of having illicit relation with his Uncle. Mother of Respondent/husband felt very embarrassed, insulted and pained by such false and reckless allegation.
In Para 7,
On 16.06.1996 Respondent/husband and his mother went to the house of his in-laws where the mother of the husband tried to make her understand not to leave matrimonial home and if there is any problem she must tell family members and hearing this the Appellant/wife became so much furious that she pushed her Mother-in-Law and she fell down causing head injury. On this ungraceful act people surrounded there and asked Appellant/wife about such irratic behaviour and she told that unless and untill Respondent/husband separates him from his family, she won’t enter her matrimonial home otherwise she will set her ablaze.
In Para 8,
Respondent/husband’s family was so much pressurized by the Appellant/wife that there was disruption in the joint family of Respondent/husband and he was allotted a separate share in the joint family property and Respondent/husband had to reside in a single room away from his joint family. A happy joint family was ruined and separated by cruel conduct of Appellant/wife.
In Para 9,
Since the Appellant/wife is daughter of policeman she is a spoiled child, idiot and obstinate and respondent/husband found him self helpless in house of his inlaws and had to tolerate all sorts of insult and humiliation.
Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 clearly explain the cruel behavior of the Knife.
In Para 15,
After sometime Defendant/wife refused to cohabit with plaintiff and never permitted physical relation with her and failed to perform her marital obligation as wife and has withdrawn from society of her husband.
Rekha Kumari @ Rekha Devi vs Mahesh Kumar on 16 January, 2018