This is a quash judgment from Shri Dr.Arijit Pasayat J delivered based on the 7th category of cases, from Bhajan Lal case, that may be quashed is
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
In this judgment by Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held that,
The necessary ingredients for proving a criminal offence must exist in a complaint petition. Such ingredients of offence must be referable to the places where the cause of action in regard to commission of offence has arisen. A cause of action as understood in its ordinary parlance may be relevant for exercise of jurisdiction under Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India but its definition stricto sensu may not be applicable for the purpose of bringing home a charge of criminal offence. The application filed by the appellant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure disclosed commission of a large number of offences.
Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has passed an order to transfer a case from Vadodara to another police station having territorial jurisdiction or to CID Crime or any other independent agency. This without the notice to/knowledge of the original complainant. Read on.
From Para 5,
The informant was not impleaded as a party therein. No notice was issued on the said appeals. No reason has been assigned. The Court did not advert to the question as to whether it had any jurisdiction to pass the said order. Why such a concession was made by the learned APP on the very first day of hearing is not known.
….
The Court should not interfere in the matter at an initial stage in regard thereto. If it is found that the investigation has been conducted by an Investigating Officer who did not have any territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the same should be transferred by him to the police station having the requisite jurisdiction.
From Para 6,
It is of some significance that the High Court exercised its jurisdiction even without notice to the petitioner. The investigation has to be carried out on the basis of the allegations made. The first informant is required to be examined; statements of his witnesses were required to be taken; the accused were also required to be interrogated.
The undue haste with which the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction, in our opinion, should not be encouraged.
Finally,
We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where we should refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders. Consequently, the charge sheets filed by the Wagodhia Police Station stand set aside. The concerned Police Officer of Vadodara Police Station would initiate appropriate investigation in the matter in accordance with law.
This is another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it is held FIR has to be mandatorily registered for every Cognizable Offence reported in a Police Station. If the accused is a police official, CBI can file case and investigate it.
In just judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that
in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons.
The safeguards can be:-
i) Availability of video conferencing facility.
ii) Availability of legal aid service.
iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV CPC.
iv) E-mail address/phone number,
Citations : [2017 SCC 4 150], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 236], [2017 AIR SC 1345], [2017 CTC 2 457], [2017 CDR SC 2 202], [2017 AJR 2 462], [2017 ALR 122 905], [2017 ALT 5 4], [2017 ALD 3 151], [2017 BOMCR 3 62], [2017 CLT 123 1054], [2017 DMCSC 2 173], [2017 GLT 2 29], [2017 JKJ SC 2 35], [2017 KHC 2 380], [2017 KLJ 2 549], [2017 KLT 2 593], [2017 LW 3 721], [2017 MPLJ 3 344], [2017 MHLJ 4 764], [2017 OLR 1 1033], [2017 RCR CIVIL 2 358], [2017 SCALE 3 471], [2017 SCJ 6 392], [2017 WBLR SC 3 622], [2017 WLN SC 2 26], [2017 SCC CIV 2 394]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43287493/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58ca392a2713e10674449271
This judgment is overruled in Santhini Vs Vijaya Venketesh here.
Justice Dipak Misra has issued guidelines in the usage of video conferencing especially in matrimonial cases in the interests of Justice and to avoid delays.
Citations: [2017 BOMCR 6 315], [2017 CTC 6 81], [2017 KHC 5 48], [2017 KLT 4 415], [2017 RCR CIVIL 4 623], [2017 SCALE 12 359], [2018 SCC 1 1], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1202], [2017 INSC 1023]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184536583/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/59dbc07bce686e237b6a89fc
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
From Para 9,
In all these cases there was either statements of witnesses or seizure of black jaggery and olum materials being used for manufacturing illicit distilled liquor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. Whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the concerned accused persons guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime as against certainty. That being so, the interference at the threshold with the F.I.R. is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in R.P. Kapoor and Bhajan Lal cases (supra).
From Para 10,
Ultimately, the acceptability of the materials to fasten culpability on the accused persons is a matter of trial. These are not the cases where it can be said that the FIR did not disclose commission of an offence. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR in the concerned cases.
This is a landmark judgment where in Hon’ble Supreme Court has held out the settle principles in dealing with compensation paid in case of accidental deaths.
In Sarla Verma v. D.T.C. (2009) 6 SCC 121, a two-Judge Bench of this Court took cognizance of the lack of uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation to the victims of accidents caused by motor vehicles, referred to the judgments in U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Trilok Chandra (1996) 4 SCC 362, G.M., Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas (1994) 2 SCC 176 and made the following observations:
To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well-settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand)
The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependant family, constitutes the multiplicand.Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier)
Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceasedStep 3 (Actual calculation)
The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the “loss of dependency” to the family.Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs 5000 to Rs 10,000 may be added as loss of estate. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of 5000 to 10,000 should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
From Paras 15 and 16,
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment is modified and it is declared that the appellants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.7,00,000 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount with effect from the date of filing petition under Section 166 of the Act.
Respondent No.3 is directed to pay the amount of enhanced compensation and interest within a period of three months by getting prepared two demand drafts of equal amount in the names of appellant Nos.1 and 2. It will be open to respondent No.3 to recover from respondent Nos.1 and 2 their respective shares of the compensation.
Here Respondent No.3 is the insurance company. 🙂
Case details:
The respondent, after the expiry of 4 years of the passing of the ex-parte decree of divorce dated 28.11.1989, moved an application dated 17.12.1993 for setting aside the same basically on the grounds that ex-parte decree had been obtained by fraud and collusion with the postman etc., to get the report of refusal and on the ground that she had not been served notice even by substituted service and also on the ground that even subsequent to obtaining decree of divorce the appellant did not disclose the fact of grant of divorce to her during the proceedings of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.). The said application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was also accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay.
Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborated on the principle of “Sufficient Cause” Vs “Good Cause”. This is a vital piece of check the Hon’ble courts should do to ensure there was sufficient cause for the person who was to be present in Court on receiving Court summons/Notice.
From Para 9,
In this context, “sufficient cause” means that party had not acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have been “not acting diligently” or “remaining inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously.
From Para 10,
The only difference between a “good cause” and “sufficient cause” is that the requirement of a good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of a “sufficient cause”.
From Para 12,
In order to determine the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC, the test has to be applied is whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called on for hearing and did his best to do so. Sufficient cause is thus the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Therefore, the applicant must approach the court with a reasonable defence. Sufficient cause is a question of fact and the court has to exercise its discretion in the varied and special circumstances in the case at hand. There cannot be a strait-jacket formula of universal application.
The following ingredients are necessary to constitute bigamy:
(1) the accused must have contracted first marriage;
(2) he must have married again;
(3) the first marriage is subsisting at the time of the second marriage and
(4) the spouse must be living.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the following in this landmark judgment
Bad Behavior has blocked 400 access attempts in the last 7 days.
