Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011

Posted on May 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the knife filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and approached the Hon’ble court with unclean hands and committed fraud upon the Hon’ble.

Key (Tricky) Highlight around applicability of CrPC but not Sec 468 CrPC:

24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 508.

Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011

Citations : [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 90], [2012 CRLJ SC 309], [2012 ALLMR CRI SC 369], [2011 CRIMES SC 4 51], [2011 SUPREME 6 181], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 129], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 1], [2011 SCC 12 588], [2011 SLT 6 434], [2011 AIOL 597], [2011 SCALE 9 295], [2011 JT 11 177], [2012 SCC CRI 2 614], [2011 ACR SC 3 3544], [2011 DMC SC 3 7], [2011 KCCR 4 3283], [2011 KLJ 3 40], [2011 KLT SN 4 69], [2011 NCC 2 544], [2011 SCR 10 557], [2011 UC 3 1758], [2012 SCC CIV 2 742]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1337239/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af03e4b014971141557d

Another previous judgment cited in this judgment is available here.

Index DV case laws is here.

Meghmala & Ors Vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors on 16 August, 2010

Posted on May 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Fraud on Hon’ble Court is always viewed seriously.

Meghmala & Ors vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors on 16 August, 2010

Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009

Posted on May 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Nice judgment quashing order of Magistrate who took cognizance of case wherein the allegations in the complaint are vague and general in nature, which was filed after about nine years of the marriage!

From Para 4,

the complaint is against Rajesh in the sense that the accused Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over the ornaments and clothes to his parents lest they are lost in the way. On reaching to Delhi when the ornament were asked back by the complainant, they were not returned back.
There is undoubtedly some reference to the present appellants, but what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description and as to the date when the ornaments were asked back and were refused.
…
Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint and it is a general and vague complaint that the ornaments were sometime given in the custody of the appellants and they were not returned. What strikes us more is that even in paragraph 10 of the complaint where the complainant says that she asked for her clothes and ornaments which were given to the accused and they refused to give these back, the date is significantly absent..

From Para 5,

In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence.

Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/339579/

Citations: [(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286], [2009] INSC 1632, [AIR 2009 SC(Supp) 2950]

V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Posted on May 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court clearly defining the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition.

V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Citations : [1994 UJ SC 1 70], [1994 AIR SC 710], [1993 SCALE 4 488], [1994 SCC 1 337], [1994 BLJR 1 1], [1994 PUNJ LR 1 603], [1994 GLH 1 186], [1994 AN LT SC 1 14], [1994 BOMLR 96 360], [1994 ALT SC 1 14], [1994 ALR 23 77], [1994 LW 1 27], [1994 CIVILCC 558], [1993 JT SC 6 428], [1993 SUPP SCR 3 796], [1993 SUPPSCR 3 796], [1994 UJ 1 70], [1994 AIR 710]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1848484/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac91e4b014971140f2cb#20

The Index is here.

Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014

Posted on May 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment from Supreme Court asserting that ‘No automatic arrest’ in matrimonial cases. See here how this judgement has impacted the Bail-Jail industry.

“Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
(2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction;
(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

Most important.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may
extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014

Citations: [2014 DLT 210 599], [2014 GLR 2 1848], [2014 CRIMES SC 3 40], [2014 OLR SC 2 562], [2014 KARLJ SC 4 177], [2014 AD SC 7 697], [2014 KCCR 3 1977], [2014 JT 7 527], [2014 AIOL 411], [2014 MPHT SC 4 81], [2014 RLW SC 3 2171], [2014 CCR SC 3 144], [2014 WLN SC 3 28], [2014 AIC 140 118], [2014 MPJR SC 4 55], [2014 JLJR SC 3 313], [2015 LW CRL 1 318], [2014 ALT CRI 2 457], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 3 527], [2014 KHC 3 69], [2014 CRIMES SC 3 206], [2014 GLT SC 3 102], [2014 SLT 5 582], [2014 SCC 8 273], [2014 MLJ CRL SC 3 353], [2014 CRLJ SC 3707], [2014 AIR SCW 3930], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 532], [2014 ACR SC 3 2670], [2014 SCJ 6 219], [2014 CRILJ 3707], [2014 GUJLR 2 1848], [2014 JT 9 55], [2014 SUPREME 5 324], [2014 DMC SC 2 546], [2014 GUJ LH 2 547], [2014 KERLT 3 143], [2014 ILR 5507], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 3 362], [2014 SCALE 8 250], [2014 PLJR 3 314], [2014 AIR SC 2756], [2014 JCC SC 3 1529], [2014 KLJ 3 330], [2014 SCC CRI 3 449], [2014 SCSUPPL CHN 4 73], [2014 GLH 2 547], [2014 ALLCC 86 568], [2014 ILR KER 3 165]

Ajoy Kumar Ghose Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009

Posted on May 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Apex Court, Hon’ble Bench has, in detail, explained the procedure before framing charges and the discharge procedure thereof.

Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009

Poongadi And Anr Vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013

Posted on May 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court in this judgment re-iterated that the imprisonment for a monthly maintenance payment failure is 1 single month, for each violation.

From Para 6,

6. In another decision of this Court in Shantha v. B.G Shivananjappa 2005 4 SCC 468 it has been held that the liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is in the nature of a continuing liability. The nature of the right to receive maintenance and the concomitant liability to pay was also noticed in a decision of this Court in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali 1999 5 SCC 672. Though in a slightly different context, the remedy to approach the court by means of successive applications under Section 125(3) CrPC highlighting the subsequent defaults in payment of maintenance was acknowledged by this Court in Shahada Khatoon.

From Para 8,

8. In view of the above, we are left in no doubt that the order passed by the High Court needs to be interfered with by us which we accordingly do. The order dated 21-4-2004 of the High Court is set aside and we now issue directions to the respondent to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the appellants commencing from the date of filing of the maintenance petition (MC No. 1 of 1993) i.e 4-2-1993 within a period of six months and current maintenance commencing from the month of September 2013 payable on or before 7-10-2013 and thereafter continue to pay the monthly maintenance on or before the 7th of each successive month. If the above order of this Court is not complied with by the respondent, the learned trial court is directed to issue a warrant for the arrest of the respondent and ensure that the same is executed and the respondent taken into custody to suffer imprisonment as provided by Section 125(3) CrPC.

Poongadi And Anr vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013

Citations : [2013 SCR 9 862], [2013 AIR BOMR 6 775], [2013 SLT 8 113], [2013 SCALE 12 186], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 371], [2013 AIR SC 5764], [2014 AIR SC 24], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 794], [2013 CRLJ SC 5006], [2014 SCC CRI 1 361], [2013 SCC 10 618], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 504], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 701], [2013 AIOL 65], [12013 SUPREME 7 254], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 893], [2013 GUJ LH 3 363], [2013 CTC 6 338], [2013 AIC 131 58], [2014 ECRN 1 720], [2014 AD SC 7 511], [2013 ALLCC 83 973], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 299], [2013 DMC 3 460], [2014 GLR SC 3 2005], [2013 JLJR 4 575], [2014 LW CRL 1 69], [2013 NCC 2 840], [2014 PLJR 1 52], [2014 SCJ 1 797], [2013 AIR SCW 5764]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/5626322/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415baa

Index of maintenance cases under sec 125 CrPC are here.

B Sunitha Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 December, 2017

Posted on May 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, the advocate asked for a percentage of the alimony amount from the Knife !!

B Sunitha vs The State Of Telangana on 5 December, 2017

Shalu Ojha Vs Prashant Ojha on 18 September, 2014

Posted on May 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Interesting act of counsel !!

In Para 14,
Strangely, when the appellant’s application for the payment of current maintenance in C.M. No.18869 of 2013 was listed on 27.5.2014 before the High Court along with other connected matters in Appeal (Crl. Misc. Case No.1975 of 2013) preferred by the respondent, the application of the appellant was dismissed as “not pressed” on representation made by the counsel appearing for the appellant. The
appellant appeared in person before us and made a statement that such instructions not to press the application were never given to the counsel who appeared in the High Court and hence the present appeal.

Shalu Ojha vs Prashant Ojha on 18 September, 2014

The same parties have been fighting DVC case still and the case number at Apex Court is “Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3935/2016“.

Search for latest daily orders here.

Search link on Indiankanoon.org here.

The Case Index is available here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification