In this quash judgment under CrPC 482 from Hon’ble Supreme Court, the main contention of IPC 406 was not even entertained on the distant relative of husband.
Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification
Pankaj Mahajan vs Dimple @ Kajal on 30 September, 2011
Hon’ble Supreme Court granted divorce to husband on the grounds of cruelty (constantly giving threats of suicide) and desertion by knife who is a patient of Bipolar Affective Disorder (A.K.A Chronic Paramoid Schizophrenia). Permanent alimony is granted in this case, God knows why.
Citations : [2012 SCC CRI 1 345], [2011 SCC 12 1], [2011 AIOL 731], [2011 SLT 7 317], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 534], [2011 SCALE 11 278], [2012 ALLMR SC 1 473], [2012 SCC CIV 1 685], [2011 GUJ LH 3 513], [2012 CTC 3 75], [2011 ULJ 4 85], [2011 LW 5 690], [2012 CHN 1 34], [2011 KLJ 4 528]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55665/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b12ae691cb22da6d5570
Index of Divorce judgments is here.
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 April, 2010
In this sensationalized case of murder of a woman called as Jessica Lall, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the presence of accused was well established by ocular (eye) witnesses.
From Para 13,
The following principles have to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while dealing with appeals, particularly, against the order of acquittal:
(i) There is no limitation on the part of the Appellate Court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found.
(ii) The Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal can review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions.
(iii) The Appellate Court can also review the Trial Court’s conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
(iv) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to marshal the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal.
(v) An order of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference.
(vi) While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the
Appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether finding of the Trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly, erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the Appellate Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of
any of the above infirmities, it can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion.
(vii) When the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of Ballistic Experts etc., the Appellate Court is competent to reverse the decision of the Trial Court depending on the materials placed.
Wanna read the wikipedia page? Go here.
V.K. Sasikala Vs State on 27 September, 2012
This judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court which held that the accused may be allowed an inspection of the unmarked and unexhibited documents held by court that were submitted along with charge sheet.
From Para 7,
It is the view of the learned trial court as well as the High Court that in the present case the charges against the appellant were framed way back in the year 2007. At the time of the framing of the charge the court is required to satisfy itself that all papers, documents and statements required to be furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. have been so furnished. No grievance in this regard was raised by the appellant or any of the accused. The issue was also not raised at any point of time in the course of examination of any of the prosecution witnesses (over 250 witnesses had been examined). It has also been expressed by the High Court that though the appellant had answered over 532 questions in her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. no grievance was raised or any prejudice claimed by the appellant at any earlier point of time. It is also the view of the High Court that non furnishing of the copies of the documents or not conceding to the prayer for inspection will not automatically render the prosecution bad in law in as much as the effect of such action must result in prejudice to the accused which question can well be decided when the matter is being considered on merits. The High Court also took the view that the documents, copies or inspection of which was sought, being unmarked and unexhibited documents, objections can always be raised if the accused is to be questioned in connection with such documents in her examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. In addition to the above, the High Court was of the view that this court having passed clear directions in its order dated 18th November, 2003 that the criminal proceedings against the accused should be brought to its earliest conclusion by conducting the trial on day to day basis, the filing of the applications for certified copies/inspection of the unmarked and unexhibited documents constitute another attempt on the part of the appellant to over reach the order of this court and delay the trial. It is the correctness of the reasons assigned by the High Court for ultimate conclusions reached by it that has been assailed before us in the present appeals.
From Para 16,
The declaration of the law in Sidhartha Vashisht (supra) may have touched upon the outer fringe of the issues arising in the present case. However, the positive advancement that has been achieved cannot, in our view, be allowed to take a roundabout turn and the march has only to be carried forward. If the claim of the appellant is viewed in context and perspective outlined above, according to us, a perception of possible prejudice, if the documents or at least an inspection thereof is denied, looms large. The absence of any claim on the part of the accused to the said documents at any earlier point of time cannot have the effect of foreclosing such a right of the accused. Absence of such a claim, till the time when raised, can be understood and explained in several reasonable and acceptable ways. Suffice it would be to say that individual notion of prejudice, difficulty or handicap in putting forward a defence would vary from person to person and there can be no uniform yardstick to measure such perceptions. If the present appellant has perceived certain difficulties in answering or explaining some part of the evidence brought by the prosecution on the basis of specific documents and seeks to ascertain if the allegedly incriminating documents can be better explained by reference to some other documents which are in the court’s custody, an opportunity must be given to the accused to satisfy herself in this regard. It is not for the prosecution or for the Court to comprehend the prejudice that is likely to be caused to the accused. The perception of prejudice is for the accused to develop and if the same is founded on a reasonable basis it is the duty of the Court as well as the prosecution to ensure that the accused should not be made to labour under any such perception and the same must be put to rest at the earliest. Such a view, according to us, is an inalienable attribute of the process of a fair trial that Article 21 guarantees to every accused.
From Para 17,
… What is of significance is if in a given situation the accused comes to the court contending that some papers forwarded to the Court by the investigating agency have not been exhibited by the prosecution as the same favours the accused the court must concede a right to in the accused to have an access to the said documents, if so claimed. This, according to us, is the core issue in the case which must be answered affirmatively. In this regard, we would like to be specific in saying that we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by the High Court that the accused must be made to await the conclusion of the trial to test the plea of prejudice that he may have raised. Such a plea must be answered at the earliest and certainly before the conclusion of the trial, even though it may be raised by the accused belately. This is how the scales of justice in our Criminal Jurisprudence have to be balanced.
Citations : [2013 AIR SC 613], [2013 AJR 1 683], [2014 ALLMR CRI 5183], [2013 CRI LJ 177], [2012 JT SC 9 609], [2013 KARLJ 3 83], [2012 KLJ 4 570], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 1 244], [2012 SCALE 9 488], [2012 SCC 9 771], [2013 SCC CRI 1 1010], [2012 SCR 10 641], [2012 LW CRI 2 759], [2012 AIR SC 5502], [2012 CCR 4 205], [2012 DLT CRI 4 250], [2012 SLT 7 343], [2012 MLJ CRI 4 355], [2013 KANTLJ 3 83], [2013 MAHLJ CRI 1 258], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 799], [2013 ECRN 1 16], [2012 AIR SCW 5502]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166228518/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1ee4b0149711415a8c
Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin Vs Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy on 7 December, 2017
Another gem of Order (not judgment) from my favorite judges Shri Adarsh Kumar Goel J and Shri Uday Umesh Lalit J, where in it was held that,
From Para 9,
Thus, it is clear that while ordinarily the Court has to proceed on the basis of material produced with the charge sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even if such document is not a part of the charge sheet. It does not mean that the defence has a right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. de hors the satisfaction of the court, at the stage of charge.
Citations : [CDJ 2017 SC 1384], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1430], [(2018) 2 SCC 93], [(2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 458], [(2018) 2 SCC 6]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178580003/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a3408f5ce686e2b4ddaf270
K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018
A recent 2018 quash judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of 498A based on the allegations made on maternal uncles, prima facie, not making out any case as alleged.
From Paras 4 and 5,
4. A perusal of the charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet discloses the fact that the Appellants are not the immediate family members of the third Respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third Respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third Respondent who was harassing the second Respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third Respondent for taking away his child to the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The Appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge sheet and the supplementary charge sheet were filed after disposal of the case by the High Court.
5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of process of a Court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 551.
Citations: [2018 SCC 14 452], [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 1080], [2018 AIR SC 4009]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/85067403/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b7c448e9eff436a94f01d47
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/08/22/relatives-of-husband-acquitted-of-charge-under-section-498-a-ipc-on-finding-allegations-to-be-omnibus-and-unspecific-sc/
Surender Kaushik & Ors Vs State Of U.P & Ors on 14 February, 2013
Hon’ble Apex Court has once for all clarified the position on permissibility of second FIR with this judgment,
From Para 25,
In the case at hand, the appellants lodged the FIR No. 274 of 2012 against four accused persons alleging that they had prepared fake and fraudulent documents. The second FIR came to be registered on the basis of the direction issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the Code at the instance of another person alleging, inter alia, that he was neither present in the meetings nor had he signed any of the resolutions of the meetings and the accused persons, five in number, including the appellant No. 1 herein, had fabricated documents and filed the same before the competent authority. FIR No. 442 of 2012 (which gave rise to Crime No. 491 of 2012) was registered because of an order passed by the learned Magistrate. Be it noted, the complaint was filed by another member of the Governing Body of the Society and the allegation was that the accused persons, twelve in number, had entered into a conspiracy and prepared forged documents relating to the meetings held on different dates. There was allegation of fabrication of the signatures of the members and filing of forged documents before the Registrar of Societies with the common intention to grab the property/funds of the Society. If the involvement of the number of accused persons and the nature of the allegations are scrutinized, it becomes crystal clear that every FIR has a different spectrum. The allegations made are distinct and separate. It may be regarded as a counter complaint and cannot be stated that an effort has been made to improve the allegations that find place in the first FIR. It is well-nigh impossible to say that the principle of sameness gets attracted. We are inclined to think so, for if the said principle is made applicable to the case at hand and the investigation is scuttled by quashing the FIRs, the complainants in the other two FIRs would be deprived of justice. The appellants have lodged the FIR making the allegations against certain persons, but that does not debar the other aggrieved persons to move the court for direction of registration of an FIR as there have been other accused persons including the complainant in the first FIR involved in the forgery and fabrication of documents and getting benefits from the statutory authority. In the ultimate eventuate, how the trial would commence and be concluded is up to the concerned court. The appellants or any of the other complainants or the accused persons may move the appropriate court for a trial in one court. That is another aspect altogether. But to say that it is a second FIR relating to the same cause of action and the same incident and there is sameness of occurrence and an attempt has been made to improvise the case is not correct. Hence, we conclude and hold that the submission that the FIR lodged by the fourth respondent is a second FIR and is, therefore, liable to be quashed, does not merit acceptance.
Sri Rameshwar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2018
This judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court allowed Exemption from Personal Appearance under CrPC 205 to parents and family of Arnesh Kumar.
Chandra Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994
The contemnor in this case has filed a forged Experience certificate in a Transfer Petition filed by his Knife in a matrimonial proceeding. Hon’ble Apex Court has contemplated whether filing of a forged document with intention to defraud the court, amounts to contempt of court. And it held in affirmative.
The husband was given two weeks of imprisonment.
Citations: [1995 SCC (1) 421], [JT 1994 (7) 459], [(1995) 1 SCJ 84], [(1996) 1 BLJ 298], [1994 AIR SCW 4994], [1995 (1) SCC 421], [(1995) 78 ELT 7], [(1996) 1 EASTCRIC 725], [(1995) 1 CRICJ 157], [(1994) 7 JT 459 (SC)], [1995 SCC (CRI) 239]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1224592/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac98e4b014971140f422
[Landmark Judgement] Chandra Shashi V. Anil Kumar Verma (1995)
https://lawfyi.io/chandra-shashi-vs-anil-kumar-verma-on-14-november-1994/
Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994 , SSC
https://lawsuitcasefinder.com/casedetail?id=U2FsdGVkX184rYST35NDUAK7M8gplo2SgOpZhyiWe1LtksMgs5
Index of Perjury judgments is here. Index of Contempt of Court judgments here.
Dhananjay Sharma Vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May 1995
This landmark judgment from Apex Court has been cited in many cases handled by CBI as the contemnors in this case were handed out Simple Imprisonment from 1 day to 3 months.
- Superintendent of Police Hissar Shri Anil Dawra to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for committing contempt of court by filing false affidavits
- Addl. Superintendent of Police Hissar Shri Sham Lal Goel and SHO Hissar Shri Rajendra Singh to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500 each and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days each.
- Shri Sushil Kumar taxi driver to suffer one days’ simple imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment, for committing contempt of this Court
The petitioner of this Writ petition could have gotten compensation from State for his illegal detention but due to his exaggeration of the incident, has disentitled themselves from receiving any compensation.
Some related news here.
Citations : [1995 SCC CRI 608], [1995 SCALE 3 138], [1995 AIR SC 1795], [1995 CRIMES SC 2 592], [1995 SCC 3 757], [1995 BOMCR SC 4 366], [1995 ALR 26 180], [1995 ALT CRI 2 340], [1996 BLJR 1 352], [1995 SCR 3 964], [1996 UPLBEC 1 203], [1995 JT SC 4 483]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1877695/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acc2e4b014971140fa5f
Index of Perjury Judgments is here.
