After getting kicked in the nuts by AP High Court here, the Cabal went to Supreme Court and got the balls crushed.
Citations :
Other Sources :
Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification
Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharastra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008
A wonderful decision by Supreme Court of India around High Court’s inherent power under section 482 CrPC against the Revisional Powers u/s 401 CrPC.
From Para 8,
8. Indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. This Court in a large number of decisions beginning from R .P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 to Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka , [ (2008) 3 SCC 574 ] has laid down the criterion for entertaining an application under Section 482. Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application under Section 482 of the Code.
Even where a revision application is barred, as for example the remedy by way of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court has held that the remedies under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would be available. (See Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, [ (2003) 6 SCC 675 ] ).
Even in cases where a second revision before the High Court after dismissal of the first one by the Court of Sessions is barred under Section 397 (2) of the Code, the inherent power of the Court has been held to be available.
Citations : [2009 SCC 2 370], [2009 CRLJ SC 974], [2008 SCALE 16 240], [2009 SCC CRI 1 806], [2009 BOMCR CRI SC 1 802], [2008 AIOL 1468], [2008 SCR 17 844], [2009 AIR SC 1032], [2009 AIC SC 75 265], [2009 ECRN SC 2 284]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1891955/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae9ee4b0149711414586
Narain Khamman Vs Parduman Kumar Jain on 19 Oct 1984
A division bench of Apex Court held the purpose for which the Statement of Objects and Reasons of a Bill may be replied upon.
From Para 12,
12. It is now well settled that though the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying a legislative Bill cannot be used to determine the true meaning and effect of the substantive provisions of a statute, it is permissible to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying a Bill for the purpose of understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute, and the evil which the statute sought to remedy.
Citations : [1985 AIR SC 4], [1985 SCR 1 1025], [1984 SCALE 2 650], [1985 SCC 1 1], [1985 UJ 17 422], [1985 UJ SC 422]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1258047/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac15e4b014971140dfc3
P.K. Shaji Vs State of Kerala on 27 Oct 2005
A division bench of the Apex Court held that a superior court always has power to give directions to lower court to pass appropriate orders. In this case, to check if the bail conditions are violated and cancel the bail.
The order of the Sessions Court shows that the learned Magistrate has been empowered to consider the question of violation of any of the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court and was given powers to pass appropriate orders. The plea raised by the appellant’s learned Counsel is that when the learned Magistrate had no such power, the Sessions Court was not empowered to invest that power in the Magistrate. We do not find any force in this contention. The superior court can always give directions of this nature and authorise the subordinate court to pass appropriate orders and the trial Magistrate would be the competent authority to decide whether any condition had been violated by the person who had been released on bail. When there is a specific direction to pass appropriate orders as if the conditions for granting bail had been imposed by the learned Magistrate himself, the impugned Order is legal and valid.
Citations : [2005 JT 9 481], [2006 AIR SC 100], [2005 SCC 13 283], [2005 SCALE 8 724], [2005 CRLJ SC 5063], [2005 SCR SUPP 4 840], [2005 CRIMES SC 4 184], [2005 SUPREME 7 2652005 AIOL 534], [2005 AIR SC 5560], [2006 SCC CRI 2 174], [2005 KERLT 4 856], [2005 CRILJ 5063], [2005 ALD CRI 2 517], [2005 JT SC 7 282], [2005 SCC 12 461], [2005 UJ 2 1136], [2006 SCC CRI 174], [2005 CRI LJ 5063], [2005 KLT 4 856], [2005 AIR SCW 5560]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/440533/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae1ee4b0149711413041
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors on 08 Oct 1974
A division bench consisting the legendary Justice P.N. Bhagvati, held that a subsequent petition under 482 CrPC is maintainable if the facts and circumstances are different from earlier application. Here Section 561-A is current Section 482 CrPC.
Section 561-A preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must, therefore, exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The High Court was in the circumstances entitled to entertain the subsequent application of Respondents 1 and 2 and consider whether on the facts and circumstances then obtaining the continuance of the proceeding against the respondents constituted an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Indiankanoon version:
Casemine version:
Citations : [1975 AIR SC 1002], [1975 PLR 77 147], [1975 SCC 3 706], [1974 CRLR 0 691], [1975 AIR SC 100], [1975 SCJ 11 478], [1976 MLJ CRL 1 1], [1975 SCC CRI 156], [1975 CRLJ SC 812]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1993916/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aba3e4b014971140cf5f
Index of Quash judgments is here.
Gullipilli Sowria Raj Vs Bandaru Pavani on 4 Dec 2008
Going through the Preamble of the HMA 1955, the division bench of the Supreme Court held that the marriage of a Hindu with a Christian is void ab initio.
From Para 18,
18. Although, an attempt has been made to establish that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, did not prohibit a valid Hindu marriage of a Hindu and another professing a different faith, we are unable to agree with such submission in view of the definite scheme of the 1955 Act.
From Para 20,
20.As submitted by Mr. Rao, the Preamble itself indicates that the Act was enacted to codify the law relating to marriage amongst Hindus. Section 2 of the Act which deals with application of the Act, and has been reproduced hereinabove, reinforces the said proposition.
From Para 21, Use of ‘may’ in section 5 of HMA
21.Section 5 of the Act thereafter also makes it clear that a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if the conditions contained in the said Section were fulfilled. The usage of the expression ‘may’ in the opening line of the Section, in our view, does not make the provision of Section 5 optional. On the other hand, it in positive terms, indicates that a marriage can be solemnized between two Hindus if the conditions indicated were fulfilled. In other words, in the event the conditions remain unfulfilled, a marriage between two Hindus could not be solemnized. The expression ‘may’ used in the opening words of Section 5 is not directory, as has been sought to be argued, but mandatory and non-fulfilment thereof would not permit a marriage under the Act between two Hindus. Section 7 of the 1955 Act is to be read along with Section 5 in that a Hindu marriage, as understood under Section 5, could be solemnized according to the ceremonies indicated therein.
And finally in Para 22,
22.In the facts pleaded by the respondent in her application under Section 12(1)(c) of the 1955 Act and the admission of the appellant that he was and still is a Christian belonging to the Roman Catholic denomination, the marriage solemnized in accordance with Hindu customs was a nullity and its registration under Section 8 of the Act could not and/or did not validate the same. In our view, the High Court rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein and the judgment and order of the High Court does not warrant any interference.
Citations : [2009 MPLJ SC 2 48], [2008 SCALE 16 109], [2008 AIOL 1405], [2009 MHLJ SC 2 850], [2008 SCR 17 35], [2009 ALLMR SC 1 488], [2009 BOMCR SC 5 906], [2009 SCC 1 714], [2009 AIR SC 244], [2008 JT 13 450], [2009 SUPREME 1 145], [2009 SCC CIV 1 326], [2009 AIR SC 1085], [2009 AIC SC 74 33], [2009 CHN SC 1 158], [2009 AIR SCW 244]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/421764/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae6ae4b0149711413cbe
Udai Shankar Awasthi Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 09 Jan 2013
A Division Bench of the Apex Court quash the complaint case filed against the appellants and while doing to enunciated and reiterated lot of legal principles supported by case laws.
From Para 6,
LIMITATION IN CRIMINAL CASES- Section 468 Cr.P.C.:
6. Section 468 Cr.P.C. places an embargo upon court from taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the limitation period provided therein. Section 469 prescribes when the period of limitation begins. Section 473 enables the court to condone delay, provided that the court is satisfied with the explanation furnished by the prosecution/complainant, and where, in the interests of justice, extension of the period of limitation is called for. The principle of condonation of delay is based on the general rule of the criminal justice system which states that a crime never dies, as has been
explained by way of the legal maxim, nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi (lapse of time is no bar to the Crown for the purpose of it initiating proceeding against offenders). A criminal offence is considered as a wrong against the State and also the society as a whole, even though the same has been committed against an individual.
From Para 7, regd delay in registering a complaint
7. The question of delay in launching a criminal prosecution may be a circumstance to be taken into consideration while arriving at a final decision, however, the same may not itself be a ground for dismissing the complaint at the threshold. Moreover, the issue of limitation must be examined in light of the gravity of the charge in question.
From Para 8, regd while condoning delay has to record the reasons
8. The court, while condoning delay has to record the reasons for its satisfaction, and the same must be manifest in the order of the court itself. The court is further required to state in its conclusion, while condoning such delay, that such condonation is required in the interest of justice.
From Para 10,
CONTINUING OFFENCE:
10. Section 472 Cr.P.C. provides that in case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time period during which the offence continues. The expression, ‘continuing offence’ has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. because it is one of those expressions which does not have a fixed connotation, and therefore, the formula of universal application cannot be formulated in this respect.
From Para 16,
16. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that, in the case of a continuing offence, the ingredients of the offence continue, i.e., endure even after the period of consummation, whereas in an instantaneous offence, the offence takes place once and for all i.e. when the same actually takes place. In such cases, there is no continuing offence, even though the damage resulting from the injury may itself continue.
From Para
SECOND COMPLAINT ON SAME FACTS-MAINTAINABILITY:
17. While considering the issue at hand in Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 130, this Court, after considering its earlier judgments in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876; Jatinder Singh & Ors. v. Ranjit Kaur AIR 2001 SC 784; Mahesh Chand v. B. Janardhan Reddy & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 702; Poonam Chand Jain & Anr. v. Fazru AIR 2005 SC 38 held:
“It is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit.”
From Para 28,
28. Approaching the court at a belated stage for a rightful cause, or even for the violation of the fundamental rights, has always been considered as a good ground for its rejection at the threshold. The ground taken by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the cause of action arose on 20.10.2009 and 5.11.2009, as the appellants refused to return money and other materials, articles and record, does not have substance worth consideration. In case a representation is made by the person aggrieved and the same is rejected by the competent statutory authority, and such an order is communicated to the person aggrieved, making repeated representations will not enable the party to explain the delay.
Citations : [2013 SCALE 1 212], [2013 JT 1 539], [2013 JCC SC 1 711], [2013 SCC 2 435], [2013 SUPREME 1 590], [2013 AIOL 18], [2013 SLT 1 249], [2013 CRIMES SC 1 231], [2013 SCC CIV 1 1121], [2013 SCC CRI 2 708], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 41], [2013 AIC 123 137], [2013 UC 1 449], [2013 ACR 1 689], [2013 BLJ 3 28], [2013 NCC 1 549], [2013 AD SC 1 537], [2013 JLJR 1 235], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 503], [2013 SCR 3 935], [2013 MLJ CRI 1 462], [2013 JCC 1 711], [2013 MLJ CRL 1 462], [2013 JT SC 1 539]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39425468/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af3fe4b0149711415eef
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/udai-shankar-awasthi-vs-state-of-u-p-anr
The High Court judgment is here.
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Tara Dutt and Anr on 19 Nov 1999
A 3-judge full bench of Apex Court held that the limitation available under section 468 CrPC deals only with taking of the initial cognizance of an offence by a Court.
Indiankanoon version:
Casemine version:
Citations : [1999 ACR SC 3 2841], [2000 AIR SC 297], [2000 ALD CRI 2 278], [1999 JT SC 9 215], [2000 LW CRL 1 379], [2000 OLR 1 153], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 1 41], [1999 SCALE 7 183], [2000 SCC 1 230], [1999 SUPP SCR 4 514], [2000 SCC CRI 125], [2000 AIR SC 207], [1999 SUPREME 9 421], [1999 AIR SC 4413], [2000 CRIMES SC 1 15], [1999 CCR 4 280], [1999 SLT 9 612], [2000 SRJ 1 79], [2000 JCC 1 121], [2000 UJ SC 1 498], [2000 CRLJ SC 485], [1999 AIR SCW 4413]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1807975/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad5ae4b0149711411286
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993
Landmark judgment by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India around perjury/fraud committed upon the Courts. Just read the below line to understand how far the frauds take the Courts for a ride.
This Civil Appeal was numbered 994 of 1972, but got decided on October 27, 1993!
Twenty One (21) years lost at Supreme Court itself!!!
From Para 5,
5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that “there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence”. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
From Para 6,
6. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Ex. B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants- defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex. B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.
Citations : [1994 AIR SC 853], [1993 SCALE 4 277], [1994 UJ SC 1 1], [1993 BC SC 2 546], [1994 BLJR 1 216], [1994 OLR SC 1 201], [1995 PLR 109 293], [1993 SUPP SCR 3 422], [1994 SCC 1 1], [1994 PLJR 1 39], [1994 APLJ SC 1 66], [1994 LW 1 21], [1994 GLH 1 81], [1993 JT SC 6 331]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1151521/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8fe4b014971140f23f
Index of Perjury related judgments is here.
Asar Mohammad and Ors Vs State of UP on 24 Oct 2018
Replying on a catena of landmark judgments, a division bench of the Apex Court that the Appellant No.1 is guilty of committing the murder and the Appellant No.2 and 3 are liable to punishment u/s 201 IPC.
Citations : [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 2179], [2019 SCC 12 253], [2019 SCC CRI 4 321], [2018 AIR SC 5264], [2018 CRIMES 4 387], [2019 ALL LJ 1 382], [2018 AIC 192 50], [2019 ECRN 1 148]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28788694/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5bd343729eff430a1b47f1d9
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/asar-mohammad-and-ors-versus-the-state-of-u-p
https://crlreview.in/asar-mohammad-v-state-of-up/
