Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Learned counsel further relied on the decision passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1954 of 2020, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2008 in the case of “Suresh Nanda V. CBI”, wherein the Apex Court observed that impounding of a passport cannot be done by the Court under Section 104 Cr.P.C. though it can impound any other document or thing. Accordingly, this court held that neither the Police nor the Courts have power to seize the passport or to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the passport even when a criminal case is pending in the court of law and only the Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport.

3 Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020

Posted on November 5 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows:

From Para 18, (When Seizure turns into Impounding – 4 weeks from Seizure)

18. Having given due consideration to the submissions made as above and also taking note of the precedents on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is to be seen that retaining of passport by the police authorities after the same is seized beyond a period of four weeks would amount to impounding by the police authority, which power the said authority lacks, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda V. C.B.I. (2008) 3 SCC 674. Further, this court having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and the provisions of the Cr.P.C. including Section 457 Cr.P.C., has by its order in I.A. No.1 of 2019 in W.P. No.22956 of 2019 held that retaining the seized property by the police after being reported to the Magistrate, would have to be considered only as a custodian and such retaining cannot be considered as impounding by the police authorities and passport holder has to make an application to the concerned Court for release of the passport.

From Para 19,

However, even after commencement of functioning of Courts, if the respondent police authority has failed or fails to take steps in depositing the passport within a period of four weeks, the same would amount to impounding, which power the authorities are not conferred with.

From Para 20,

20. Further, even after the seized material is deposited into Court under seizure report, when it comes to passport seized and deposited into Court, the Court is not empowered to impound the passport under Section 104 of Cr.P.C. upon such deposit. The power to impound a validly issued passport is specifically conferred on the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, being a special enactment would prevail over Cr.P.C. a general enactment. Thus, even after deposit of seized property into the Court, the respondent authority would be required to take further steps by approaching the passport authority under the Passports Act, 1967, and seek for impounding of passport. The said situation can arise only if any one of the condition enumerated in clause (a) to (h) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 being attracted. At this stage, the judgement rendered by the Madras High Court in Jeyabalan case (supra) would be of aid to the case of the petitioner.

From Para 21 (Very Imp: Passport/Travel document can be cancelled by Passport Authority, even when the physical possession of passport is not there with them)

21. It is also to be seen that for impounding of passport by the passport authority on attracting any of the conditions specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, having of physical custody of passport is neither mandatory nor specified. It is only the satisfaction of the passport authority that any of the conditions stipulated in (a) to (h) of Section 10(3) is attracted, the authority can impound the same, irrespective of where the passport holder is residing at. However, before passing of impounding order, the authority is required to give opportunity of hearing to the concerned. Thus, the claim of the respondent authorities that, if passport is released to the petitioner, it will be difficult to apprehend him again, does not appeal to this Court for being accepted for the aforesaid reasons and also having regard to the wide amplitude of powers, the passport authority enjoys, unless the petitioner escapes to countries with whom India does not have Extradition Treaties or Arrangements or seeks asylum in a country so permitting. Even otherwise, the said apprehension also appears to be without any basis for the reason, the petitioner claims to be working onsite/onshore with an Indian IT company and would be on employment visa and all his details would be available with the employer as to the onsite location of working and client details and at a call of the employer, the employee can be withdrawn and deported from wherever he is.

Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Posted on November 2 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Saket Court, New Delhi passed this order.

From Para 41,

41. In light of the above discussion, the Application U/s 12 PWDV Act filed by the complainant is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to be deposited by the complainant in the account of Blind Relief Association. The imposition of cost is in furtherance of the principle that wrongdoers should not get benefits out of frivolous litigations. Needless to say, all interim orders stand canceled.

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165927699/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/sumana-bhasin-vs-neeraj-bhasin-9863

One Lakh Fine on Wife For Filing Fake Domestic Violence Case

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Posted on October 18 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP HC held as follows while directing to release the passport of the petitioner.

From Para 4 and 5,

4. In view of the above finding of the Hon’ble Apex Court, directing for surrender of passport or to deposit the same in the Court is ex-facie illegal and it is clearly un-sustainable under Law.
5. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, neither the Police nor the Courts have power to seize the passport or to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the passport even when a criminal case is pending in the Court of law and only the Passport Officer is the competent authority to impound the passport.

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

Posted on October 18 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows while directing to release passport of the petitioner.

6. The law is now fairly well settled that the Courts have no power to direct the accused to deposit or surrender the Passport, even when a criminal case is pending against the accused in the Court of law. It is only the Passport Officer, who is the competent authority under Passports Act, to impound the Passport of any citizen of the country. If the police got any apprehension that the accused, who is facing trial in the criminal case, may leave the country and he may not be available for trial of the case, they have to approach the Passport authority concerned with a request to impound the Passport of the said person on the ground that he is facing trial in a criminal case. If the Court, before whom the accused is facing trial, is of the opinion that if the accused leaves the country and goes abroad that he may not be available for trial, the Court can issue necessary direction to the accused not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court or on a petition filed by the prosecution to that effect, the Court can pass appropriate order in this regard.

From Para 8, the Precedent

8. Therefore, in view of the dictum laid down in aforesaid Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order directing the petitioner to surrender his Passport or to deposit the same in the Court is ex-facie illegal and it is clearly unsustainable under law.

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

Posted on October 18 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows:

From Para 4,

4. The present case concerns an application made by the petitioner before the trial Court seeking release of his passport on the ground that the son of the petitioner studies in a school at Paris – Sports Etudes Concept and was attending classes virtually. Since classes have now started physically, the
petitioner wanted to accompany his son for getting him admitted in the school. This application is rejected by the trial Court. It is the rejection of the application that is called in question in the present proceedings. Therefore, these proceedings concern with the rejection of release of passport of the petitioner and not any other issue that is pending in plethora of cases between the parties.
6. Learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli would submit that several proceedings between the parties are pending consideration. The Apex Court has stayed all further proceedings in other cases. The case at hand is not an offshoot of those cases, but an independent case of an application, where the passport of the petitioner is seized, not impounded by the police and there is grave urgency for the petitioner to leave the country and get his son admitted to the school at France.

And then

17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is facing criminal proceedings before the competent criminal Court and the Police after investigation have also filed charge sheet in the matter in which, the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.10. Therefore, it is not a case where the passport of the petitioner cannot even be seized or impounded, but, by whom is the question.
18. The Passport Act is a special enactment and is trite that it being a special enactment would prevail over Section 102 or Section 104 of the Cr.P.C., which empower the Police to seize and the Court to impound any document. Impounding of any document produced before the Court cannot stretch to an extent that it can impound the passport. Therefore, the deposit of passport before the Court or passport being held before the Police, both will become without authority of law. The further observation of the Court that it would be in its custody till conclusion of trial is, clearly on the face of it, without authority of law, as it would amount to impounding the passport. This very issue fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of SURESH NANDA v. CBI

The Apex Court dealt with the very issue as to who would be the Authority to impound the passport. The Apex Court holds that neither the Police nor the Court invoking powers under Section 102 or Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. can seize or impound a passport. Impounding of a passport is by the Authority vested under the Act as depicted therein. It is not in dispute that the Authority under the Act is not even made aware of seizure or retention of the passport by the Police or before the Court.

From Para 24,

21. The power of impounding a document under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. is available to a Court. This cannot stretch to an extent of impounding the passport. The passport coming within the purview of the Act and it being a special law would prevail over the provisions of Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. The Court can impound any document, but not the passport as it is dealt with under a special enactment. The power of impounding is available only to the Competent Authority under the Act, in terms of Section 10 of the Act. Wherefore, the order rejecting the release of passport by the Court observing that it is held in safe custody till the conclusion of the trial is unsustainable. Therefore, the petitioner becomes entitled for release of passport in his favour, as right to hold a passport and travel is, without doubt, held to be a fundamental right in plethora of judgments.

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Posted on October 6 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of PHHC held as follows:

From Paras 11-14,

11. As per the settled proposition of law as enumerated hereinabove, proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are not to be initiated in every case where offences are purportedly made out. In fact, the said proceedings are to be initiated only in a situation, where the Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. This shows that such a course of filing a complaint will only be adopted, if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. In the present case, no such finding has been recorded, as has already been mentioned above and even otherwise, the dispute is between the parties, who are closely related being brothers.
12. In fact, one of the criteria for proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. would be where due to the false statement, one party has succeeded in getting a favourable order, which otherwise, he would not have got. Therefore, if the false statement affects the very nature of the order passed by the Court, then, that itself can be one of the circumstances, where proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. ought to be initiated. In the present case, assuming that a false statement had been made either in the written statement or by virtue of filing of affidavits, those pleadings/averments did not affect the fate of the case. In fact the petitioner did obtain a decree in his favour. Therefore, there is no apparent illegality in the orders dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) and 08.02.2017 (Annexure P-2).
13. Having examined the matter in its entirety, I also find that the dispute in question is between close relatives. Certain pleadings are filed in civil/criminal proceedings and the defendants in a civil proceeding take their defence, which in the present case was denying the right of ownership of the petitioner-complainant. Every person has a right to defend his case and he can take many defence pleas. Taking up a plea by itself would not amount to giving false evidence. Further, in the present case, in view of the discussion above, it would certainly not be expedient in the interest of justice to proceed against the respondents.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove as also the relationship between the parties and the civil proceedings having culminated in favour of the petitioner, as such no advantage has been taken by the respondents by virtue of their allegedly false pleadings/affidavits. Therefore, it would certainly not be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Index of Perjury cases here.

Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022

Posted on October 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has passed an Order in a proceeding u/s 482 CrPC stating that,

From Para 10,

10) The petitioners, in effect, are aggrieved of the impugned petition filed by respondent No.1 against them and the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the learned trial Magistrate on the said petition. So far as the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are concerned, the same cannot be equated with lodging of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution. So, the trial Magistrate, after obtaining the response from the husband and his relatives etc. is well within his jurisdiction to revoke his order of issuing summons to them or he can even drop the proceedings. The learned Magistrate would be well within his jurisdiction to cancel the interim order of monetary compensation if he, upon going through the response of the husband and his relatives, finds that they have been unnecessarily roped in or that no case for grant of interim monetary compensation is made out. Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act are not, in strict sense, criminal in nature, as such, bar to alter/revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings.

Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022

Citations:

Other Sources:

Sec 12 Of DV Act | Magistrate Can Recall the Order of Interim Monetary Compensation If He Finds Husband Is Unnecessarily Roped In The Case: J&K&L HC

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/proceedings-under-section-12-of-domestic-violence-act-cannot-be-equated-with-lodging-a-criminal-complaint-jammu-kashmir-ladakh-high-court-6176.asp

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/jkl-high-court-dv-act-section-12-proceedings-criminal-complaint-208360

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Posted on September 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of a Sessions Court in Mumbai held as follows:

From Para 5,

5] Perusal of the application under Section 12 of the D. V. Act filed by the applicant has several references to the alleged domestic violence committed by the respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that he resides separately and not with the appellant or the respondent No. 1. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his impugned order has observed that since the respondent No. 1 never resided with the appellant in any shared household he cannot be considered to be the respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. He, therefore, omitted him from the array of the respondents in the main application.

From Para 6,

6] Such an observation of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate however, is wholly misplaced. It is for the simple reason that the proviso to Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act makes it very clear that an aggrieved wife can also file a complaint against a relative of the husband. The Act nowhere mandates that an aggrieved person can seek relief only against the persons who have shared household with her. Had that been so, it would have been very convenient to cause violence or any other trouble to the aggrieved person through the relatives not sharing the same household and yet remained out of the clutches of the D. V. Act. Rather, holding that any relative of the husband if not sharing or shared the same household cannot be a respondent would amount to giving licence to those relatives to commit violence to the aggrieved person and thereby rendering the very Act meaningless. That just cannot be and certainly was not the intention while enacting the said statute. As observed earlier, there are sufficient references to show that the respondent No. 1 was also a party to the domestic violence committed to the appellant. As such, the proceedings against him was certainly tenable. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was obviously wrong in holding that the respondent No. 1 since not shared the household with the appellant could not be a respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. Consequently, the impugned order cannot sustain.

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Index of DV Cases here.

Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021

Posted on September 12 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was filed by the petitioners way back on
16.07.2016 and despite the opposite party nos.2 to 8 have been served, the petition is still pending before the court below and the same has not been
decided as provided under Section 12(5) of the Domestic Violence Act. While drawing the attention of this Court towards the order-sheet of the case, it has been submitted that now the case is pending for cross examination of the prosecution witness no.3.
Learned A.G.A. would have no objection to the prayer of the petitioners as it is otherwise the mandate of law to dispose of the cases pertaining to the Domestic Violence Act at the earliest.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and having regard the nature of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the opposite party nos.2 to 8 is dispensed with.
Having regard to the provisions under Section 12(5) of the Domestic Violence Act, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow to make all endeavors to decide the above-mentioned complaint case within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without granting soft adjournments to either of the parties, in accordance with law.

Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51997103/

Connects to a PIL here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

Ravi Ramesh Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 Mar 2022

Bireddy Pradeep Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 09 Nov 2020

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Y Usha Gayatri Vs State of AP and Anr on 13 Oct 2020

Kuchiraju Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 Jan 2020

Praveen Surendiran Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 21 Mar 2022

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021