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.
Category: High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification
Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016
In this judgment, Punjab & Haryana HC held that “Complaint under DV Act not maintainable after divorce”.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs State of Haryana on 09 October, 2018
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.
[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”]
Dr. Harbans Singh Sodhi Vs State of Punjab and others on 14 May, 2018
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.
Having 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.
Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam And Others on 14 November, 2013
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the revision of knife against the acquittal judgment of husband and others from IPC 498A due to many reasons as listed out by the learned Sessions Judge.
Reasons for acquittal of Husband:
#1 admission made by petitioner Reema in her cross-examination that earlier she was married to Vipin Kumar, and their marriage had not been dissolved by the court of competent jurisdiction. It was, therefore, held that since marriage was not dissolved legally, therefore, her marriage with accused Anupam was void ab initio.
#2 in a case of second marriage, no demand for dowry is usually put forward. It was further observed that petitioner Reema in her statement had not given any particulars or the details of the demands made nor she deposed that any amount was ever given by her to any of the accused.
#3 Raj Mani, the father of the petitioner, made a statement that there was a demand of Rs. 2 lacs from her daughter Reema by the respondents and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was given by him to his daughter on two occasions. However, the learned trial Court observed that these allegations were levelled for the first time when the said witness deposed before the Court and was duly confronted with earlier statement where no such allegations were made by the father, who stated so for the first time while stepping into the witness box. The said fact assumes significance because the statement of father of the petitioner was also recorded after seven months of the occurrence for which there is no explanation as to why statement was recorded at a belated stage.
#4 it is in the statement of Dr. Rajesh Kumar that Reema was taken to Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar by her husband and in-laws. It was observed that it is also a circumstance which should weigh in favour of the accused as normally, a criminal will not take the patient to hospital to keep victim alive if he had any intention to kill the victim.
#5 it has come in the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Kumar that petitioner herself had told the doctor that she has consumed the acid orally. Thus, the first statement, which was made to the doctor, the petitioner had admitted categorically that she had taken acid orally, which falsifies the entire prosecution story
#6 in the testimony of Dr. Vijay Mahan that if acid is administered forcibly, it is likely to cause some effect on other parts of the body. The Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that when a small child do not drink milk and if it is poured into his mouth from glass forcibly, in such circumstances, milk would always spill over other parts of body. However, there was no injury on the tongue or any part of mouth except swelling over the lips, which negates the story of forcible administration of poison
#7 the acid alleged to have been recovered was not sent to the Chemical Examiner for test nor was it produced before the Court. The stomach were not preserved and sent to the Chemical Examiner. Thus, taking into account the above facts, delay in the registration of case, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements of witnesses that the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused
Earlier Supreme Court decision is here.
Renu Beniwal and others Vs Sarika Nehra Beniwal on 20 April, 2018
Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has dealt with 4 key questions in this judgment, namely,
(i) Whether the instant petition is maintainable, in view of the fact that the petitioners had initially approached this court seeking to challenge the orders passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-24095 of 2015 and the same proceedings had been dismissed as withdrawn?
(ii) Whether the proceedings under the DV Act are maintainable against petitioners No.1 and 2, since it is admitted that they did not reside together with the respondent?
(iii) Whether the complainant-respondent would be entitled to reside in Flat No. 701, Tower 3 Uniworld Garden Sohna, Road Gurgaon, which is not belonging to her husband-petitioner No.3?
(iv) Whether the proceedings under the DV Act initiated prior in time to the decree of divorce would still be maintainable against petitioner No.3, even though the complainant-respondent has subsequently re-married?
The same are answered as follows
(i) As such, this question is answered against the respondent, holding that this petition is maintainable.
(ii) Therefore, from the above averments made in the complaint itself, it is abundantly clear that petitioners No.1 and 2 never resided or stayed together with respondent in a domestic relationship as defined in Section 2 (f) of the DV Act. Consequently, the complaint filed under the DV Act is clearly not maintainable against petitioners No.1 and 2 herein. As such, this question is answered in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2. Consequently, the complaint filed under the DV Act along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, including the impugned orders, are hereby quashed qua petitioners No.1 and 2.
(iii) From Para 19, In view of the foregoing discussion and ratio of law held by the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra’s case (supra) the third question formed by this court is answered against the respondent-wife. The house in question, being exclusively belonging to petitioner No.2 (father-in-law), it cannot be called a “shared household” within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the DV Act. Therefore, the complainant-respondent has no right to reside in the said flat and the injunction order passed by the court restraining petitioner No.2 from dispossessing her is clearly unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order dated 1.12.2014 passed by the trial court as well as order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the lower Appellate Court restraining the petitioners herein from dispossessing the complainant-respondent from the flat in question is set aside.
(iv) The complaint filed by the respondent cannot be quashed at this stage regarding the allegations against petitioner No 3. Therefore, this question is answered against petitioner No.3.
MS Manu Sharma And Company Vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 September, 2016
Interesting case of a liquor merchant trying to approach with unclean hands and gain illegal order from Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
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
Navdeep Singh Vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 19 March, 2018
In this judgment from Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was held that after this court has gone through the FIR in which, no specific allegation has been leveled qua demand of dowry, nor was such evidence brought before the court in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
Hence revision is rejected.
[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”]
Smt. Imlesh Vs Amit And Others on 20 February, 2013
In this case, a cunning Knife faked a ‘InLaws-set-fire-on-me’ drama and got rightly rapped by the Hon’ble High Court. The law point elucidate here is: in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.
From the Judgment
When giving benefit of acquittal to the respondents-accused, it was noticed by the trial Court that in the witness box, applicant- complainant PW-3 had made many improvements, so far as her allegations are concerned. It was also noticed that the burnt clothes of the complainant were not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. In the witness box it was stated by the complainant that after she was put on fire, she grabbed mobile phone from one of the culprits and made a telephonic call to her brother and thereafter, she doused the fire by sprinkling water upon her from a drum. On this aspect, deposition made by the complainant, was rightly discarded by the trial Court.
30% burns on exposed body parts would be visible to anyone and had there been any such apparent injury, the police would not have dismissed her stand for want of sufficient proof. Moreover, the infant daughter of the complainant was with her. If at all the complainant would have been badly burnt, she could hardly have handled an infant child.
The fact that neither Imlesh nor Satbir have referred to their visit to the police reflects their mala-fides.
The Investigating Officer further clarified that it was the accused who had informed the police on the telephone No.100 that Imlesh had been harassing them and wanted to set their house on fire. In pursuance of this, the concerned official had advised the accused to inform the Police Station Surajkund whereupon it was the accused who had informed this witness (PW-7) of the occurrence telephonically that Imlesh was trying to set their house on fire. When the police reached the spot, no one was present there and part of the house had already been burnt. The neighbours had disclosed to the Investigating Officer that it was Imlesh who had put certain goods on fire in the house and had thereafter run away.
The trial Judge has thrashed the entire evidence in a proper manner and the opinion formed is as per evidence on record.
Jagbir Singh vs Nisha on 11 March, 2015
This is a case of a Knife, named Nisha, who filed false criminal cases (498A, 406 and DV Case) on the Husband and his family that got dismissed as prosecution failed to prove the cruelty allegation. The trial court found them to be totally unfounded and baseless. Moreover, The father of the appellant at the ripe old age is facing a charge under Section 354-A IPC.
After all this nonsense, also filed RCR under Section 9 of HMA !!
Unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations made by a spouse as against the other spouse would amount to cruelty.
