Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs and Ors Vs Special Deputy Collector (LA) on 08 Apr 2024

Posted on April 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed these guidelines with respect to condoning the delay in filing appeals…

From Para 26,

26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.

Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs and Ors Vs Special Deputy Collector (LA) on 08 Apr 2024

Mainoddin Vs State of Karnataka on 02 Feb 2024

Posted on March 24, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that, ‘vague,general and omnibus allegations against the family members/relatives implicating them in matrimonial disputes are an abuse of process of
law.’

From Paras 4 and 5,

4. The present appellant is the younger brother of the husband of complainant-respondent no.2 and the only allegation made against him in the last
paragraph of the complaint is that all the family members of the husband joined together and used foul language against the complainant of not
getting dowry from her family.
5. It is already well settled by this Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741 and also in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2022 decided on 08.02.2022, that such vague, general and omnibus allegations against thefamily members/relatives implicating them in matrimonial disputes are an abuse of process of law.

Mainoddin Vs State of Karnataka on 02 Feb 2024

Index of landmark quash judgements is here.

Bezawada Chandravadana Vs State of Telangana and Anr

Posted on March 22, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,

On 15-Mar-2024,

3. Heard Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The counsel submits that the petitioner is the complainant and the respondent No. 2 who is her husband, is facing the proceeding in CC No. 249 of 2012 before the Magistrate’s Court at Hyderabad. In course of the said proceeding, the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and on the basis of her response in the cross-examination, the respondent No. 2 had filed the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for a direction on the petitioner to produce her passport for the purpose of further cross-examination. According to the counsel, the said prayer was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate under her order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P/4). However, the High Court under the impugned order has erroneously ordered for production of the petitioner’s passport to substantiate her claim on the travel from USA to India.
4. The counsel would argue that this was an incorrect decision by the High Court as in the application filed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was not arrayed as a party. It will also have implication for the privacy of the petitioner.

Bezawada Chandravadana Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 15 Mar 2024

Earlier order from Telangana High Court here.

Joseph Salvaraj A Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 4 Jul 2011

Posted on March 21, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 11,

11.The Appellant, thereafter, was constrained to file the petition under Section 482 of the Code in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, with a prayer for quashing of the FIR bearing C.R. No. I-371/2006 registered with Odhav Police Station and to stay further investigation in the case. The said
application came to be considered before the learned Single Judge on 11.1.2007. By that time, charge sheet was already filed before the Competent Criminal Court. Thus, learned Single Judge, was of the opinion that it was not a fit case to be entertained and refused to hear the petition on merits, even though the appellant was given liberty to file an application for his discharge before the Trial Court. It may be noted that even in its impugned order the learned Single Judge has emphasized that he had not considered the case on merits. Thus the Appellant’s petition was dismissed and interim order granted in his favour was vacated.

From Paras 15 and 16,

15. The allegations in the F.I.R. clearly discloses a civil dispute between the parties and the FIR seems to have been filed only with an intention to harass and humiliate the Appellant. This was a pre-emptive move by the Complainant.
16. A summary Civil Suit under Order 37 Rule II of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CPC’) has already been filed by Dharmendra P. Rami @ Laläbhai against the Appellant and the Respondent No.4, Complainant herein, before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad claiming a sum of Rs. 10 lacs together with interest thereon. In the said suit an unconditional leave to defend has already been granted to the Appellant and the matter is still pending. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it was contended that it is a fit case where the FIR deserves to be quashed otherwise the same would amount to abuse of the process of law.

From Paras 21-23,

21. Criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 of the IPC and 406 thereof deals with punishment to be awarded to the accused, if found guilty for commission of the said offence i.e. with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
22. Section 420 of the IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Cheating has been defined under Section 415 of the IPC to constitute an offence. Under the aforesaid section, it is inbuilt that there has to be a dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is sine qua non to hold the accused guilty for commission of the said offence. Categorical and microscopic examination of the FIR certainly does not reflect any such dishonest intention ab initio on the part of the appellant.
23. Section 506 of the IPC deals with punishment for criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance have been defined in Section 503 of the IPC but the FIR lodged by complainant does not show or reflect that any such threat to cause injury to person or of property was ever given by the Appellant to the Complainant.
24. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the Appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the Complainant’s FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examinedwhether the offences alleged to have been committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant’s FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. ornot.
25. In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of propertyor breach of trust by the Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against theAppellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation.

From Para 27,

27. In fact, all these questions have been elaborately discussed by this Court in the most oft quoted judgment reported in 1992 (Suppl) 1 SCC 335 State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, where seven cardinal principles have been carved out before cognizance of offences, said to have been committed, by the accused is taken. The case in hand unfortunately does not fall in that category where cognizance of the offence could have been taken by the court, at least after having gone through the F.I.R., which discloses only a civil dispute.

Joseph Salvaraj A Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 4 Jul 2011

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors on 29 Jan 2024

Posted on March 20, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,

We do not agree with the reasoning of the High Court for dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, having regard to the ratio of the judgment of this Court delivered on 04.07.2011 in the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2011 (7) SCC 59. That was a case arising from the quashing plea of an F.I.R., where chargesheet was submitted after institution of the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. A Coordinate Bench of this Court opined that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not on the basis of the F.I.R., chargesheet and other documents.

Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors on 29 Jan 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Abhishek Gour Vs State of MP on 31 Aug 2023

Posted on March 20, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of the Apex Court passed this order,

From Para 8, (Police merely replicated the contents of the FIR and added nothing further on the strength of their investigation, observes Supreme Court of India, karma!)

8. Om Prakash, Bhawna’s father, also made a statement before the police on 08.09.2013 on the same lines. He said that her marriage was performed at Indore on 02.07.2007 and as per his status, he had given cash,gold, jewellery, clothes etc., totalling to ₹.5 lakhs, in dowry. He said that, whenever Bhawna came to meet them, she used to tell him and all the neighbours that her husband, Nimish, mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, and brothers-in-law, Abhishek and Sourabh, used to tell her that her father had given nothing in dowry and when she went to her parental home, she should bring .2 lakhs in cash, a car and gold jewellery. ₹ He stated that they had been harassing his daughter mentally and physically for dowry. He alleged that, on Karvachauth day, Bhawna’s mother-in-law had demanded 100 sarees but he had refused. Renubala, Bhawna’s mother, also made a statement on 08.09.2013 on identical lines. Two of their neighbours, Sushila Bai andMohan, also gave statements on the same day, supporting Bhawna’s version. According to them, whenever Bhawna came to meet her parents, she used to tell them that her in-laws were torturing her mentally and physically for dowry.On the other hand, Shailendra and Radhey Shyam, who lived in the neighbourhood where Nimish’s father had his residence, stated to the effect that there were no demands made of Bhawna or her family for dowry and that she was never harassed on that ground. In their final report dated20.09.2013, the police merely replicated the contents of the FIR and added nothing further on the strength of their investigation.

From Para 9, (Attempts to terrorize)

9. Certain other facts are also of pertinence and may be noted. Abhishek entered judicial service as a Civil Judge six or seven months after the marriage of Bhawna with Nimish. He was posted at Ujjain and, thereafter,at Neemuch in Madhya Pradesh. Kusum Lata used to reside with Abhishek. Saurabh, Bhawna’s other brother-in-law, is an architect and was working at Delhi since the year 2007. Nimish made written representations to the police authorities at Narsinghpur on 09.09.2012 and 17.11.2012 complaining of intimidation by and at the behest of Bhawna. Prior thereto, an anonymous complaint was made to the Chief Justice, Madhya Pradesh High Court, against Abhishek, making scandalous allegations to the effect that he was undeserving of judicial office. A complaint was also made to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai, purportedly in the name of one Sanyogita Mishra. Again, the allegations therein were directed against Abhishek.

From Para 11,

11. This being the factual backdrop, we may note at the very outset that the contention that the appellants’ quash petition against the FIR was liable to be dismissed, in any event, as the chargesheet in relation thereto was submitted before the Court and taken on file, needs mention only to be rejected. It is well settled that the High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition [See Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and others {(2011) 7 SCC 59}]. This principle was reiterated in Anand Kumar Mohatta and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and another [(2019) 11 SCC 706]. This issue, therefore, needs no further elucidation on our part.

From Para 13,

13. Instances of a husband’s family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.

From Para 21, (unexplained delay)

21. Most damaging to Bhawna’s case is the fact that she did nothing whatsoever after leaving her matrimonial home in February, 2009, and filed a complaint in the year 2013 alleging dowry harassment, just before her husband instituted divorce proceedings.

Abhishek Gour Vs State of MP on 31 Aug 2023

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Kuldeep Kumar Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Ors on 20 Feb 2024

Posted on March 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Apex Court passed order to initiate perjury proceedings against a Presiding Officer of conducting the election to the Post of Mayor of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation, as follows,

From Paras 40-42,

40. Further, we are of the considered view that a fit and proper case is made out for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in respect of the conduct of Shri Anil Masih, the Presiding Officer. In paragraph 2 of the order dated 19 February 2024, we have recorded the statement which was made by the Presiding Officer when he appeared personally before this Court. As Presiding Officer, Shri Anil Masih could not have been unmindful of the consequences of making a statement which, prima facie, appears to be false to his knowledge in the course of judicial proceedings.
41. The Registrar (Judicial) is accordingly directed to issue a notice to show cause to Shri Anil Masih of the Chandigarh Municipal Corporation who was the Presiding Officer at the election which took place on 30 January 2024, as to why steps should not be initiated against him under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The notice shall be made returnable on 15 March 2024.
42. Shri Anil Masih shall have an opportunity to file his response to the notice to be issued in pursuance of the above directions in the meantime.

Kuldeep Kumar Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Ors on 20 Feb 2024

Previous Order where false statement was made in paragraph 2.

2. During the course of the hearing, the Returning Officer Mr Anil Masih is present before this Court. Responding to a query of the Court, Mr Masih stated that he had, besides signing the ballot papers, put his mark at eight ballot papers during the course of the counting of the votes. He states that he did so as he found that the ballot papers were defaced.

Kuldeep Kumar Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Ors on 19 Feb 2024

Index of Perjury judgments is here.

Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah Vs Prabhawati on 19 Oct 1956

Posted on March 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows, (with respect to ‘desertion’)

Thus the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements which differentiates desertion from wilful separation. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned : (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid.

Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah Vs Prabhawati on 19 Oct 1956

Citations: [1957 AIR 176], [1956 SCR 838]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1131783/

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Savitri Pandey Vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 Jan 2002

Posted on March 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows, (with regards to Cruelty)

From Para 6,

6. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act but in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of such type which endangers the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. “Cruelty”, therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other.

From Para 19, (with regards to the time limit to file an appeal against an Order of Family Court)

At this stage we would like to observe that the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal under Section 28(4) is apparently inadequate which facilitates the frustration of the marriages by the unscrupulous litigant spouses. In a vast country like ours, the powers under the Act are generally exercisable by the District Court and the first appeal has to be filed in the High Court. The distance, the geographical conditions, the financial position of the parties and the time required for filing a regular appeal, if kept in mind, would certainly show that the period of 30 days prescribed for filing the appeal is insufficient and inadequate. In the absence of appeal, the other party can solemnise the marriage and attempt to frustrate the appeal right of the other side as appears to have been done in the instant case. We are of the opinion that a minimum period of 90 days may be prescribed for filing the appeal against any judgment and decree under the Act and any marriage solemnised during the aforesaid period be deemed to be void. Appropriate legislation is required to be made in this regard. We direct the Registry that the copy of this judgment may be forwarded to the Ministry of Law & Justice for such action as it may deem fit to take in this behalf.

This judgment led to the passing of amendment here.

Savitri Pandey Vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 Jan 2002

Citations: [AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 591], [2002 (2) SCC 73], [2002 AIR SCW 182], [2002 ALL. L. J. 355], [2002 ALL CJ 1 122], [2002 (2) SRJ 553], [2002 (1) SLT 103], [(2002) 1 ALL WC 472], [(2002) 1 JCR 377 (SC)], [2002 (1) LRI 28], [(2002) 1 JT 25 (SC)], [2002 (1) UJ (SC) 273], [(2002) 1 MARRILJ 277], [2002 (1) ALL CJ 22], [2002 UJ(SC) 1 273], [2002 (1) BLJR 378], [(2002) 3 CIVILCOURTC 318], [(2002) 1 RECCIVR 719], [(2002) 6 BOM CR 511], [(2002) 1 HINDULR 338], [(2002) 2 MAHLR 263], [(2002) 2 PAT LJR 256], [(2002) 2 JLJR 135], [(2002) 2 GUJ LR 1369], [(2002) 1 KER LJ 193], [(2002) WLC(SC)CVL 116], [(2002) 1 SCALE 33], [(2002) 1 RAJ LW 183], [(2002) 3 GUJ LH 470], [(2002) 1 DMC 177], [(2002) 1 ANDH LT 55], [(2002) 1 CURCC 7], [(2002) 22 OCR 280], [(2002) 1 UC 299], [(2002) 1 SCJ 6], [(2002) 46 ALL LR 465], [(2002) 2 CAL HN 50], [(2002) 2 BLJ 177], [(2002) 1 SUPREME 90], [(2002) MATLR 224], [2002 (1) MARR LJ 277], [(2002) 4 CURCRIR 254], [(2002) 1 CAL HN 124], [(2002) 1 ALLCRILR 658], [(2002) 1 CALLT 32]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/325522/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e0f1ad607dba38965f8bcd

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=002002900000&title=savitri-pandey-vs-prem-chandra-pandey

https://lawfyi.io/savitri-pandey-vs-prem-chandra-pandey-on-8-january-2002-case-summary/

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/savitri-pandey-vs-prem-chandra-pandey

http://roundup.manupatra.in/trans/viewdoc.aspx?i=ptiDy4oUEz7W4RhahAaT6h93RFUeTV40hI1vo81W7g5uCfRP5tL0pktJVchar(43)F5g3qk&id=zwKDa4S8QbBCBSkXPhUPwY5CqQmaAQ/9fT/TmfIpDN9bjNPkWKzs5n8Hchar(43)U/Dqe21io8GIp7cHk/RGFLXdXEB6A==

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Feb 2024

Posted on February 18, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court trashed the mindless orders passed by AP High Court and quashed the settled criminal proceedings.

From Paras 11-15,

11. Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently submits that a bare perusal of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 and the charge-sheet plainly discloses the absence of any necessary ingredients of the charged offences. It is submitted that the allegations are wholly general and omnibus in nature, made only with the intention to harass the Appellants, amounting to an abuseof the process of the law.
12. To buttress his contention, Learned Counsel for the Appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that Respondent No. 2 filed a petition seeking divorce and onlythereafter, the memo seeking reopening of the criminal proceedings against the Appellants was filed before the Trial Court.
13. This Court has heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is significant merit in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. A bare perusal of the complaint, statement ofwitnesses’ and the charge-sheet shows that the allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even ifthey are taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the Appellants. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses thespecific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences.
15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of generalomnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v.State of Bihar2, this Court dealt with a similar case wherein theallegations made by the complainant-wife against her in-laws u/s.498A and others were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons and noted that such a situation, if leftunchecked, would result in the abuse of the process of law.

From Paras 17-18,

17. Considering the dicta in Mahmood Ali (supra), we find that the High Court in this case has failed to exercise due care and has mechanically permitted the criminal proceedings to continue despite specifically finding that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The Appellants herein approached the High Court on inter alia grounds that the proceedings were re-initiated on vexatious grounds and even highlighted the commencement of divorce proceedings by Respondent No. 2. In these peculiar circumstances, the High Court had a duty to consider the allegations with great care and circumspection so as to protect against the danger of unjust prosecution.
18. As stated above, given the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the material on record is wholly insufficient to proceed against the Appellants. Accordingly, the Impugned Orders and the Docket Order dated 20.07.2021 are set aside and the criminal proceedings against the Appellants are consequently quashed.

Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Feb 2024

The mechanical orders passed by the AP High Court which are dust-binned by Apex Court are below…

CrlP filed by In-Laws:

Mamidi Damodar Reddy and Ors Vs State of AP and Anr on 11 Nov 2022

CrlP filed by Husband:

Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 23 Nov 2022

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification

Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By LRs and Ors Vs Special Deputy Collector (LA) on 08 Apr 2024

Mainoddin Vs State of Karnataka on 02 Feb 2024

Bezawada Chandravadana Vs State of Telangana and Anr

Joseph Salvaraj A Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 4 Jul 2011

Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors on 29 Jan 2024

Abhishek Gour Vs State of MP on 31 Aug 2023

Kuldeep Kumar Vs U.T. Chandigarh and Ors on 20 Feb 2024

Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah Vs Prabhawati on 19 Oct 1956

Savitri Pandey Vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 Jan 2002

Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Feb 2024