Hon’ble High Court of Patna has quashed the false DV case of the cunning grand-daughter, holding that there is no domestic relationship as there is no shared household between them.
Aditi was just 17 years old when she filed the complaint. The complaint had been filed through her father Arun Garg being the natural guardian.
Om Parkash Syngal and others Vs Aditi Garg on 01 December, 2015
After Perjury proceedings were re-instated by HC here, knife filed a petition to turn RCR filed by husband into a MCD petition andconsequently Divorce is granted by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, after paying a settlement amount of Rs.1,25,000/-
Shashi Vs Sunny Bhumbla on 9 January, 2012
In this judgment from High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it was held that despite entering remarks in his judgment to the effect that perjury happened, the Dayaalu magistrate does not want to initiate any such proceedings of Perjury on the knife.
From second para,
While deciding the main petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment it has been observed that “in support of her claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent/applicant had made certain assertions, which were found to be totally false and the same had apparently been done by her in a deliberate manner. Consequently even an application for initiating suitable proceedings against her on account of her having submitted a false affidavit was also filed by the petitioner on 3.9.2008. Thereafter, the respondent did not press her claim for interim maintenance, but the same did not absolve her of the liability of the aforesaid lapse. This court, however, does not wish to initiate any such proceedings against the respondent with the hope that sooner or later, the parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else this young couple may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways in a peaceful manner and therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication of the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the above false affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent.“
High Court has taken the magistrate to task and said that,
Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating, forging and perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal.
And further said that,
Sunny Bhumbla Vs Shashi on 25 January, 2010A glance through the impugned order would reveal that the learned trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome and is depreciable. The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether the application has been dismissed or allowed, if so for which reasons.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1512317/
Basing on the landmark judgment here, Punjab High Court has struck down/quashed the pending 497 IPC case on the petitioner.
Chetan Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Otrs on 28 February, 2019Hamina Kang Vs District Magistrate (U.T.) on 25 January, 2016
[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”]
Just read this judgment from P&H HC which held that, even thought when there is a subsisting marriage under HMA, living-together with another man or giving birth to twins with him, can be termed as marriage-like relationship.
Ajay Bhardwaj Vs Jyotsana and others on 23 November, 2016
Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016
[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”]
In this judgment, Punjab & Haryana HC held that “Complaint under DV Act not maintainable after divorce”.
Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016[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”]
Now Hon’ble High of Punjab and Haryana also held that Courts/Police cannot impound anyone’s passport in India. Only Passport Authority can impound/revoke a passport in India.
Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs State of Haryana on 09 October, 2018[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”]
In this dismissal order from High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it was held that, it is premature to file a compensation claim while the trial is in pendency.
Dr. Harbans Singh Sodhi Vs State of Punjab and others on 14 May, 2018Having heard learned counsel at length and having perused the case paper book we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant appeal.
Concededly trial is still pending. Even otherwise registration of an FIR is not a conclusive indicator as regards complicity of an accused of the offences cited in the FIR. Appellant has not been charged for offence under Section 376 IPC. We also find that in the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus for grant of compensation, complainant had not even been arrayed as a respondent.
We are in agreement with the view taken by learned Single Judge declining grant of compensation during pendency of the trial.
Appeal is dismissed.
Suffice it to observe that it would be open for the appellant to raise a claim for compensation at the appropriate stage under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the competent Court.