web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification

Hitesh Bhatnagar Vs Deepa Bhatnagar on 18 Apr 2011

Posted on February 24 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Supreme Court examined whether consent given at the time of filing a joint petition continues to bind the parties until decree, or whether it can be withdrawn at any stage before the court passes the final order.

The appellant argued that once the statutory period of 18 months had expired without formal withdrawal, the court had no option but to grant divorce. The respondent contended that mutual consent must subsist till the date of decree and that she had validly withdrawn her consent before the second motion.

The judgment clarified the nature of mutual consent as a jurisdictional requirement and reaffirmed earlier precedents on the subject. It also considered whether Article 142 of the Constitution could be invoked to dissolve the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

“13. The appellant contends that the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, was bound to grant divorce if the consent was not withdrawn within a period of 18 months in view of the language employed in Section 13B(2) of the Act. We find no merit in the submission made by the appellant in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Sureshta Devi’s case (supra).”

“14. The language employed in Section 13B(2) of the Act is clear. The Court is bound to pass a decree of divorce declaring the marriage of the parties before it to be dissolved with effect from the date of the decree, if the following conditions are met:
a. A second motion of both the parties is made not before 6 months from the date of filing of the petition as required under sub-section (1) and not later than 18 months;
b. After hearing the parties and making such inquiry as it thinks fit, the Court is satisfied that the averments in the petition are true; and
c. The petition is not withdrawn by either party at any time before passing the decree;”

“15. In other words, if the second motion is not made within the period of 18 months, then the Court is not bound to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Besides, from the language of the Section, as well as the settled law, it is clear that one of the parties may withdraw their consent at any time before the passing of the decree. The most important requirement for a grant of a divorce by mutual consent is free consent of both the parties.”

“16. In the present fact scenario, the second motion was never made by both the parties as is a mandatory requirement of the law, and as has been already stated, no Court can pass a decree of divorce in the absence of that. The non-withdrawal of consent before the expiry of the said eighteen months has no bearing.”

“18. We are not inclined to entertain this submission of the appellant since the facts in that case are not akin to those that are before us.”

“25. It is settled law that this Court grants a decree of divorce only in those situations in which the Court is convinced beyond any doubt that there is absolutely no chance of the marriage surviving and it is broken beyond repair.”

Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

The Court held that:

  • Mutual consent must continue till the decree of divorce.

  • Either party may withdraw consent at any time before the decree.

  • The 18-month period does not bar withdrawal of consent.

  • Article 142 cannot be used to override statutory requirements in ordinary circumstances.


Hitesh bhatnagar Vs Deepa bhatnagar on 18 Apr 2011

Citation :(2011) 5 SCC 234

Other Sources :


Index of Divorce Judgements is here. 


Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Hitesh Bhatnagar Vs Deepa Bhatnagar HM Act Sec 13B - Divorce by Mutual Consent Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Mutual Consent Divorce Withdrawal of consent | Leave a comment

Baijnath and ors vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 18 Nov 2016

Posted on February 10 by ShadesOfKnife

A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, in Baijnath & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (18 November 2016), held that the unnatural death of a married woman within seven years of marriage does not, by itself, amount to dowry death under Section 304B IPC. The Court ruled that the prosecution must prove cruelty or harassment for dowry to sustain such a charge.

The Supreme Court further clarified that the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act does not operate automatically. Courts may invoke it only after the prosecution establishes dowry-related cruelty soon before death. In this case, the evidence on dowry demand was inconsistent, no prior complaint was made, and medical evidence failed to conclusively determine the cause of death.

The Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal based on presumptions. As the prosecution failed to prove cruelty beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s acquittal and granted the accused the benefit of doubt.

Relevant Extracts from the Supreme Court Judgment:

“(32) Noticeably this presumption as well is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the woman dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence. The presumption as to dowry death thus would get activated only upon the proof of the fact that the deceased lady had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the accused and that too in the reasonable contiguity of death. Such a proof is thus the legislatively mandated prerequisite to invoke the otherwise statutorily ordained presumption of commission of the offence of dowry death by the person charged therewith.”

“(33)  Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof.“

“(38) The prosecution in our estimate, has failed to prove this indispensable component of the two offences beyond reasonable doubt. The factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage therefore is thus ipso facto not sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 304B and 498A of the Code against them.“


Baijnath vs State of MP

Citations:

Other Sources:


Index of Acquittal from criminal matrimonial cases is here.

 


Key Contributor:

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.)

Contact : +91-9606345150

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Acquittal restored Acquitted in IPC 498A Baijnath and Ors Vs State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal Dowry death Landmark Case matrimonial offences presumption of dowry death Sec 113B Evidence Act Section 304B Section 498A IPC | Leave a comment

Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026

Posted on January 27 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held that Perjury applications shall continue, despite grant to divorce.

From Paras 28 to 30,

28. Now coming to the cases pending between the parties. All the cases pending between the parties, as mentioned in paragraph No.8.8, shall stand disposed of without any further action by them. However, the following applications filed by the parties raising plea of perjury shall continue because no one can be permitted to pollute the stream of justice, as emphasized by this Court in Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha10. The cases being:
(i) Crl. M. A. No.42585 of 2019 in W. P. (Crl.) No.1025 of 2023 (under Section 340 CrPC)
(ii) Application under Section 379 read with 215 BNSS filed in MT No.151 of 2021
(iii) Application under Section 379 read with 215 BNSS filed in MT No.151 of 2021
(iv) Misc. Crl. No.7 of 2019 filed in MT No.853 of 2018
(v) Application under Section 340 CrPC in MT No.853 of 2018
29. It is clarified that if besides the cases mentioned in the paragraph 28, any other application(s) filed by the parties either under section 340 CrPC or under Section 379 read with 215 of BNSS, 2023, the same shall be dealt with on merits by the concerned Courts and will not be disposed of, in view of this order passed by this Court.
30. A copy of the order passed by this Court shall be sent to the Courts concerned for taking action as per the direction in this order. However, if there is any other case arising out of matrimonial dispute, though not mentioned in the list, but pending, the same shall also stand disposed of on production of copy of this order by the parties.

Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

 


Index of Perjury Judgments is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Suninder Sandha Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 02 Dec 2025

Posted on January 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 15,

15. Evidently, Section 91 of the Code does not itself prescribe any stage. The core issue remains whether invocation of power under Section 91 of the Code by the Trial Court is as per the manner contemplated/provided for in law. We are mindful that the underlying case in Sarla Gupta (supra)1 concerned the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. It is seen that State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, relied upon by the High Court, was considered by a Bench of equal strength in Sarla Gupta (supra).

From Para 17,

17. The law is no longer res integra, having been lastly settled by the 3-Judge Bench in Sarla Gupta (supra), which provides clarity as to the relevant stage at which power under Section 91 of the Code may be invoked. In the underlying case in these appeals, such stage has not yet been reached, as defence evidence has not commenced.

Suninder Sandha Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr on 02 Dec 2025
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 91 - Seek Unmarked and Unexhibited Prosecution Documents CrPC 91 - Summons to produce document or other thing Reportable Judgement or Order Suninder Sandha Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr | Leave a comment

Vijay Kumar and Ors Vs State of Rajasthan on 08 Jan 2026

Posted on January 9 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court was ‘surprised‘ for the delays in disposing petitions by High Courts, after granting relief of stay… hehe…

It is funny these Judges were earlier High Court judges and they know all to very well, why.

From Para 15,

15. The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners in the year 2003 came to be taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 24-8-2023, i.e., after about 20 years.

From Paras 21-25,

“21. We would like to know first and the foremost why it took 23 years for the High Court to take up the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners for hearing, more particularly when the subject matter of challenge in the Criminal Revision Petition was an order framing charge in a very sensitive and serious trial like one of dowry death.”

“22. We would like to examine the entire record of the proceedings. We are saying so because we are perturbed by the fact that despite an interim relief operating, why the matter was not taken up for hearing at the earliest.”

23. “We direct the Registrar General of the High Court of Rajasthan to forward the entire record with all the order sheets by a Special Messenger to this Court at the earliest.”

24. “We would also like to know from the Registrar General of the High Court as to how many Criminal Revision Petitions came to be heard and disposed of between 2001 and 2026. We want the High Court to provide us with a break up of how many criminal revision petitions were filed in the year 2001 and how many came to be disposed of. We want this break up right up to the year 2026.”

25. “We would also like to know how many times the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners – herein in the High Court was notified for hearing from the date of its filing till the date it came to be dismissed.”

From Paras 26 and 27,

26. We would also like to know from the State as to what steps it took as the prosecuting agency to get the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioners heard at the earliest.
27. Why during this interregnum period of 23 years, the State of Rajasthan kept quiet and did not take any steps to get the Criminal Revision Petition heard and decided on merits.

From Paras 29 and 30,

29. If criminal trials in such serious offences remain pending for years together on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, it would lead to nothing but mockery of justice. Justice has to be done with all the parties. Justice cannot be done only with the accused persons. Justice has to be done even with the victim and the family members of the victim. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
30. In this regard, we request the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to ensure that the petitions wherein interim orders are passed holding up the trials should be immediately taken up for hearing, more particularly in sensitive and serious matters like murder, dowry death, rape etc.

From Para 35,

35. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to Secretary Generals/Registrar Generals of all the High Courts so as to have the same placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justices.


Next hearing on 15-1-2026.


Vijay Kumar and Ors Vs State of Rajasthan on 08 Jan 2026

Index of Judgments pertaining to Right to Speedy Trial here.


 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court Judiciary Antics Right to Speedy Trial Vijay Kumar and Ors Vs State of Rajasthan | Leave a comment

Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025

Posted on December 6, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to quash a DV case, which has same allegations as in a false 498A IPC case.

40. Accordingly, we allow both the present Criminal Appeals as below:
(i) The impugned judgement and order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No. 3105 of 2022 is set aside and the criminal proceedings in “C.C. No. 46 of 2022” pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is quashed qua the two appellants, Geddam Jhansi and Geddam Sathyakama Jabali.
(ii) The impugned judgement and order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Criminal Petition No. 1002 of 2022 is set aside and the criminal proceedings in DVC No. 25 of 2021 pending before the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhongir is quashed qua the appellant, Geddam Jhansi. This is having regard to the criminal proceeding against her being quashed as above and as identical allegation (paragraph 28 above) are made against her in DVC No. 25 of 2021, and in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. This is also by bearing in mind the relationship of the appellant Geddam Jhansi to the complainant, being the latters’s mother-in-law’s sister.

Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025

Citations: [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1], [2025 INSC 160]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192533816/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67a6e0c4a1572e13dd1ca525

https://testbook.com/recent-judgements/geddam-jhansi-vs-the-state-of-telangana

https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s498a-ipc-when-family-relations-are-sought-to-be-brought-under-criminal-proceedings-courts-should-be-cautious-supreme-court-283311

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/geddam-jhansi-v-the-state-of-telangana-2025-insc-160-domestic-violence-1567439


https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/geddam-jhansi-v-the-state-of-telangana-2025-insc-160-domestic-violence-1567439

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/geddam-jhansi-v-the-state-of-telangana-2025-insc-160-domestic-violence-1567439


Index of DV Judgments is here. Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Article 142 - Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and orders as to discovery etc CrPC 482 – DVC Proceeding Quashed Geddam Jhansi Vs State of Telangana and Anr Landmark Case Reportable Judgement or Order Same Allegations in IPC 498A and DVC | Leave a comment

Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd on 26 Mar 2025

Posted on November 23, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held (again!) as follows,

From Para 11,

11. It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court.

From Para 15,

15. It is pertinent to note that in the counter to the present appeal, the respondent has not denied the receipt of the letters dated 28th November 2016 and 13th December 2016. The complaint and affidavit in support of the complaint only refer to the notice dated 15th November 2016 issued by the advocate for the appellant to the respondent. What is stated in the complaint reads thus:
“……………………………………………………..
[D] The notice sent on the first address has been received on 15.11.2016. However, from the second address, envelope has been returned on 15.11.2016 with the postal remark as ‘left’.”
However, the respondent suppressed the letters dated 28th November 2016 and 13th December 2016 in the complaint and its statement on oath.

From Para 18 and 19,

18. The fact remains that in the complaint, the respondent has suppressed the reply dated 28th November 2016 and the letter dated 13th December 2016 sent by the appellant’s advocate. These two documents have also been suppressed in the statement on oath. The respondent made out a false case that the appellant did not reply to the demand notice. Moreover, the case that the documents as demanded were supplied is not pleaded in the complaint and statement under Section 200 of CrPC.
19. If these two letters were disclosed in the complaint, the learned Magistrate while recording the statement under Section 200 of CrPC, could have always questioned the respondent on the supply of documents to the appellant. What is important is that in the reply dated 28th November 2016, the appellant had reserved her right to give a reply to the demand notice after receiving the documents. It was the respondent’s duty to supply documents to the appellant or her advocate to enable the appellant to properly reply to the demand notice. At least, the inspection of documents could have been provided to the appellant. After noticing the fact that notwithstanding service of two letters written by the appellant, relied upon documents were not provided to the appellant, the learned Magistrate could have dismissed the complaint by exercising power under Section 203 of CrPC, as the appellant could not have replied to the statutory notice without looking at the documents relied upon.

From Para 21,

21. While filing a complaint under Section 200 of CrPC and recording his statement on oath in support of the complaint, as the complainant suppresses material facts and documents, he cannot be allowed to set criminal law in motion based on the complaint. Setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd on 26 Mar 2025

Citations: [2025 INSC 399], [2025 SCC OnLine SC641]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120031673/


Index of Perjury Judgments is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court Perjury - Wilful Omission or Supression of Material Information Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Himanshu Kumar and Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 14 Jul 2022

Posted on October 18, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Supreme Court held as follows,

From Para 79,

79. It is true that an affidavit is ‘evidence’ within the meaning of Section 191 of the IPC and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury. But the matter does not rest here. Before initiating the proceedings for perjury, the court concerned has to consider whether it would be expedient in the interest of justice to sanction such prosecution. What the courts have to see at this stage is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations made by the Union of India (respondent herein) to justify the initiation of proceedings against the writ petitioners, more particularly, the writ petitioner no. 1 herein who had filed the affidavit on behalf of himself and the other writ petitioners and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant his conviction. However, this does not mean that the court should not prima facie be of the opinion that there are sufficient and reasonable grounds for setting the machinery of criminal law in motion against the accused. As noted above, the Court has further to see that the false statement was deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. In other words, before sanctioning the prosecution there must be a prima facie case of a falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. (see S.P. Kohli v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, (1979) 1 SCC 212 : AIR 1978 SC 1753)

From Paras 86 and 87,

86. The conflict between the two decisions of this Court of equal strength, i.e. Pritish (supra) and Sharad Pawar (supra), was taken notice of by this Court in the case of the State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh, (2020) 12 SCC 96. A Bench of two Judges of this Court ultimately thought fit to refer the question to a Larger Bench. The Court observed as under :
“14. In any event, given that the decision of the three-Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar (supra) did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from the opinion expressed by a Coordinate Bench in Pritish (supra) regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as also the observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), we find it necessary that the present matter be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration, particularly to answer the following questions:
14.1 (i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court ?
14.2 (ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry ?”
87. It appears that the reference on the aforesaid two questions to a larger Bench is still pending.

From Paras 90 and 91,

90. The essential ingredients for invoking Section 211, I.P.C. are that the complaint must have falsely charged a person with having committed an offence. The complainant, at the time of giving the complaint must have known that there is no just or lawful ground for making a charge against the person. This complaint must have been given with an intention to cause injury to a person.
91. The CrPC does not define what constitutes the making of a “charge” of an offence or what amounts to the “institution of criminal proceedings”. But, in our opinion, a false “charge” in this Section must not be understood in any restricted or technical sense, but in its ordinary meaning, of a false accusation made to any authority bound by law to investigate it or to take any steps in regard to it, such as giving information of it to the superior authorities with a view to investigation or other proceedings, and the institution of criminal proceedings includes the setting of the criminal law in motion. The nature of both expressions, and the difference between them has been explained in lucid terms in the decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Karim Buksh v. Queen Emp, 17 C. 574. It points out that there may be a charge which does not amount to the institution of criminal proceedings “and there may be criminal proceedings which do not necessarily involve a charge” of any offence. As an illustration of the former it points out that a charge made to the Judge of a Civil Court or to public officers of other kinds, in order to obtain sanction to prosecute may well be a charge “but is not the institution of criminal proceedings”. It further points out that an aggrieved person may seek to put the criminal law in motion either by making a charge or in the language of the Code giving information to the Police (Section 154 CrPC) “or he may” lay a charge, or as the Code calls it, a complaint (Section 190 CrPC) before a Magistrate”.

From Para 94,

94. Thus, as explained by this Court in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain (supra), the essential ingredient of an offence under Section 211 IPC is to institute or cause, to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. Now, the expression “falsely charges” in this section, in our opinion, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial. “To falsely charge” must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation and not when seeking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be, read along with the expression “institution of criminal proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been used in their cognate sense. They get as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a technical sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be’ embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or to an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made. The statement in order to constitute the “charges” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion.

Himanshu Kumar and Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 14 Jul 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/62d7ae969fca1923f0b04184

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/himanshu-kumar-and-others-versus-state-of-chhattisgarh-and-others


Index of Perjury Judgment is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Himanshu Kumar and Ors Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors IPC 211 - False charge of offence made with intent to injure Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Prabhu Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 05 Sep 2016

Posted on October 8, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

Re-affirming Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd judgment here, Full bench of Supreme Court held that, A Petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable even when a Revision is available under 397/401 CrPC.

From Para 4,

4. The facts of these appeals need not detain us because in our considered opinion the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the impugned order is contrary to law and therefore matters will have to be remanded back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits within the scope of inherent powers available to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It would suffice to note that in both these appeals, the miscellaneous petitions before the High Court arose out of an order dated 30.11.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in the complaint no. 1669 of 2006, whereby it took cognizance against the appellants under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code and summoned them through bailable warrants to face further proceedings in the case.

From Paras 6-8,

6. In our considered view any attempt to explain the law further as regards the issue relating to inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is unwarranted. We would simply reiterate that Section 482 begins with a non-obstante clause to state: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” A fortiori, there can be no total ban on the exercise of such wholesome jurisdiction where, in the words of Krishna Iyer, J. “abuse of the process of the Court or other extraordinary situation excites the court’s jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint, nothing more.” We venture to add a further reason in support. Since Section 397 Cr.P.C. is attracted against all orders other than interlocutory, a contrary view would limit the availability of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only to petty interlocutory orders! A situation wholly unwarranted and undesirable.
7. As a sequel, we are constrained to hold that the Division Bench, particularly in paragraph 28, in the case of Mohit alias Sonu and another (supra) in respect of inherent power of the High Court in Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. does not state the law correctly. We record our respectful disagreement.
8. In our considered opinion the learned Single Judge of the High Court should have followed the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. (supra) and other earlier cases which were cited but wrongly ignored them in preference to a judgment of that Court in the case of Sanjay Bhandari (supra) passed by another learned Single Judge on 05.02.2009 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 289 of 2006 which is impugned in the connected Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 4744 of 2009. As a result, both the appeals, one preferred by Prabhu Chawla and the other by Jagdish Upasane & Ors. are allowed. The impugned common order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for fresh hearing of the petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the light of law explained above and for disposal in accordance with law. Since the matters have remained pending for long, the High Court is requested to hear and decide the matters expeditiously, preferably within six months.

 

Prabhu Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 05 Sep 2016

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Landmark Case Overruling Judgment Prabhu Chawla Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Rina Kumari Vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto and Anr on 10 Jan 2025

Posted on October 5, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held that mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.


Solution is to use same evidence in maintenance case also, that was used in RCR proceedings and win the maintenance case. Simple…
The judiciary (could!) just delayed the inevitable. That’s all.


From Paras 29 and 30,

29. Thus, the preponderance of judicial thought weighs in favour of upholding the wife’s right to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest and non-compliance therewith by the wife would not, by itself, be sufficient to attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It would depend on the facts of the individual case and it would have to be decided, on the strength of the material and evidence available, whether the wife still had valid and sufficient reason to refuse to live with her husband, despite such a decree. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard and it must invariably depend on the distinctive facts and circumstances obtaining in each particular case. In any event, a decree for restitution of conjugal rights secured by a husband coupled with non-compliance therewith by the wife would not be determinative straightaway either of her right to maintenance or the applicability of the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.
30. Another contention that was urged before us is that the findings in the judgment for restitution of conjugal rights by the Family Court, being a Civil Court, would be binding on the Court seized of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, as they are to be treated as criminal proceedings. This specious argument needs mention only to be rejected outright. No doubt, in Shanti Kumar Panda vs. Shakuntala Devi20, this Court held that a decision by a Criminal Court would not bind the Civil Court while a decision by the Civil Court would bind the Criminal Court. However, maintenance proceedings are essentially civil in nature and the reason for inclusion of the provisions dealing therewith in the Code of Criminal Procedure was clarified by the Law Commission of India in September, 1969. Significantly, as long back as in the year 1963, in Mst. Jagir Kaur and another vs. Jaswant Singh21, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court held that proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the precursor to Section 125 Cr.P.C., are in the nature of civil proceedings; the remedy, being a summary one; and the person seeking that remedy, ordinarily being a helpless person. Therefore, even if non-compliance with an order for payment of maintenance entails penal consequences, as may other decrees of a Civil Court, such proceedings would not qualify as or become criminal proceedings. Nomenclature of maintenance proceedings initiated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as those provisions find place therein, cannot be held to be conclusive as to the nature of such proceedings.

 

Rina Kumari Vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto and Anr on 10 Jan 2025

Index of HMA judgments is here. Index of Maintenance Judgments is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision HM Act 9 - Restitution of conjugal right Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Rina Kumari Vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto and Anr | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
delhipolice Delhi Police @delhipolice ·
26 Jul

⚠️ FACT CHECK: FAKE VIDEO ⚠️The viral video claiming Delhi Police DCP Sumit Jha resigned over student protests is completely fake and AI generated. The authentic footage, in which the officer addresses the public regarding active misinformation campaigns, is available vide link

Reply on Twitter 2081352316767396053 Retweet on Twitter 2081352316767396053 597 Like on Twitter 2081352316767396053 2294 X 2081352316767396053
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
itdp_official iTDP Official @itdp_official ·
31 Jul

Zero Airports..

Zero Vision..

Zero @ysjagan..

The numbers speak louder than the slogans.

#YSRCPNeverAgain #UttarandhraKalalakuRekkalu
#BhogapuramAirport

Reply on Twitter 2083105701380198733 Retweet on Twitter 2083105701380198733 102 Like on Twitter 2083105701380198733 379 X 2083105701380198733
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
renuka_jetti RENUKA.JETTI.LL.B. @renuka_jetti ·
1 Aug

ఏం చెప్పారు సార్ #YCP paytm కి చెప్పు తో కొట్టినట్టు 👏
#YcpCriminalPolitics
#EndOfYCP
#HOPEJETTI

Reply on Twitter 2083419566785646723 Retweet on Twitter 2083419566785646723 39 Like on Twitter 2083419566785646723 110 X 2083419566785646723
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
1 Aug

మాజీ ముఖ్యమంత్రి శ్రీ జగన్ రెడ్డి గారూ,

తాజాగా వచ్చిన వార్త "అప్పలరాజు బెయిల్ పిటీషన్ కొట్టివేత!" చూశాక ఆయన వయసు తెలుసుకోకుండా మీకు స్క్రిప్ట్ వ్రాసి ఇచ్చిన వాడిని తిట్టుకుంటూ.. దయచేసి మీ మెట్టుతో మీరు కొట్టుకోకండి!

"45 ఏళ్లు.. ఇంచుమించు వయసయిపోయిందిలే, ఆయన ఎవరో దారినపోయే

Reply on Twitter 2083378805889278044 Retweet on Twitter 2083378805889278044 17 Like on Twitter 2083378805889278044 59 X 2083378805889278044
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ishwar Chand Sharma and Ors Vs State of U.P. on 29 May 2026 July 26, 2026
  • Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram and Anr Vs Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar and Anr on 21 Jul 2026 July 26, 2026
  • Shikha Lall Vs Prince Agarwal on 7 Nov 2024 July 21, 2026
  • Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026 July 21, 2026
  • Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs Mamta Pandey on 1 Sep 2010 July 21, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (5,141 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,159 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,538 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,141 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (2,076 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (2,043 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (2,020 views)
  • Application for Certified Copy of FIR – Format, Procedure and Sample Draft (1,762 views)
  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (1,732 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Case (1,695 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (439)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (424)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (387)Landmark Case (384)1-Judge Bench Decision (370)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (298)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (91)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (70)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (760)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (187)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (83)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (51)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Archives of SoK

  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • EWR (Newark) on 2026-09-02 September 2, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Sep 2, 05:00 - 09:00 UTC Jul 21, 15:30 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EWR (Newark) datacenter on 2026-09-02 between 05:00 and 09:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
    Cloudflare

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.89.15.35 | SD August 2, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 207 | First: 2019-03-02 | Last: 2026-08-02
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 496 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel