Apex Court in the judgment held that there are specific allegation on the husband and his parents on a IPC 498A case and hence dismissed their appeal requesting their discharge from the case.
Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification
Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016
Legal point explained: Court (Civil and Criminal) can allow amendments to the complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court, either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint
This is a judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court where in the issue that arises is whether a court dealing with the petition/complaint filed under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) has power to allow amendment to the petition/complaint originally filed.
Original reliefs requested in DV Case
“a) to provide protection to the life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondents;
b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance;
c) to grant such other relief or reliefs if the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
These are the dole outs the begging knife requested Court to allow in this instant amendment petition
a) To provide protection to life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondent.
b) To grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and her 2nd child to their maintenance instead of Rs.5000/-
c) Direct the respondent to return the Sridhana amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and other sari samanas and marriage batuvu presented to the respondent worth about 2 sovereigns wrist watch, 7 sovereign gold chain presented by the complainant and her parents.
d) Direct the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the complaint for subjecting the compliant to physical and mental harassments besides including acts of Domestic Violence.
e) Direct the respondent to return the sari samans and other goods like worth more than Rs.10,00,000/- as per the list annexed herewith.
f) Direct the respondent to pay the cost of, litigation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- so far spent by the complainant persuing her litigation.
g) Direct the 1st respondent to provide separate residence by taking rent portion with monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-
h) Directing the respondent to return the original study certificates, medical certificates, deposits certificates and receipts etc. in the prayer portion paragraphs the following amendment by deleting the prayer original para
b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance.”
Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 531]
Other Source links:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b4f1e561097e45a4e644
Case Index is here.
The index page for DV Cases is here.
S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015
Legal point explained: Court (Civil and Criminal) can allow amendments to the complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court, either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint.
Case brief: The complainant wanted to amend his complaint to include a poem which is the cause of defamation suit he filed on his step-brother.
From Para 17,
Insofar as merits of the contention regarding allowing of amendment application, it is true that there is no specific provision in the Code to amend either a complaint or a petition filed under the provisions of the Code, but the Courts have held that the petitions seeking such amendment to correct curable infirmities can be allowed even in respect of complaints.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008
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.
Asit Bhattacharjee Vs MS. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors on 15 May, 2007
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.
Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 8 May, 2008
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.
Ramesh Kumari Vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) And Ors on 21 February, 2006
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.
Krishna Veni Nagam Vs Harish Nagam on 9 March, 2017
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.
Santhini Vs Vijaya Venkatesh on 9 October, 2017
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
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Bajjoori Kanthaiah and Anr on 20 October, 2008
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.
