Shikha Vs Avaneesh Mahodaya on 10 Sep 2024

Posted on September 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of MP High Court held as follows,

15. In view of aforesaid analysis in entirety and the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, looking to the income of the husband so also his liabilities and the fact that wife is a well educated lady, she also has her own source of income, this Court is of the considered opinion that the maintenance amount of Rs.60,000/- per month is on the higher side and the same is required to be reduced to Rs.40,000/- per month.

Index of Sec 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS] judgements is here.

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

Posted on September 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) held that the husband may initiate perjury proceedings against the knife, if he desires so.

From Para 7,

A perusal at the complaint would indicate that the complainant laid emphasis upon infections of the husband on his genital areas which resembled as STD. Therefore, the husband is guilty of mental harassment dishonestly concealing his mental condition and breaching the trust of the wife. Minute details of certain allegations are made which are found in the complaint. The crux of the complaint was STD on him, making her leave her job after marriage and therefore, she would be dependent upon him. There is not a single sentence about the petitioner demanding dowry and indulging in cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry. All the harassments that the complainant narrates are minor skirmishes between the husband and the wife.
A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would also not indicate any demand of dowry or cruelty on the part of the husband. Prior to filing of the charge sheet by the Police, statements were recorded of the family members of the complainant.
The mother herself in her statement speaks that at the time of discussions about the marriage, the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner had clearly indicated that they do not want any dowry and they are not demanding anything. The same goes with the statements of others.
What is given to the complainant, according to the complainant’s tradition, is 614 grams of silver and 160 grams of gold, not as demand but as a tradition of her family which at best be said to be ‘Stridhana’. Such statements galore. If the statements recorded of the mother and the brother of the complainant, the complaint, the charge sheet and summary of the charge sheet are red in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that, no demand for dowry was made and no cruelty that would become ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC would get attracted in the case at hand.
Section 498A has two circumstances, which can draw an accused into its web. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty which is likely to drive the woman to suicide or the harassment should be such that they would coerce the woman for meeting any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, and on failure to fulfill the demand, indulge in cruelty. If the contents of the complaint, summary of the charge and the statements are considered on the bedrock of necessary ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC, the allegation of the offence would tumble down like a pack of cards, as, no where it is indicative, of the fact that there is dowry harassment and cruelty by the husband or the members of the family of the petitioner.

From Para 8,

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that every time the petitioner was accused of suffering from STD. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is clearly indicated by the wife that the petitioner is suffering from HPV infection as he has some rashes on his buttock. The petitioner gets himself tested at the Victoria Hospital and several hospitals.
The diagnostic centre at Columbus, USA observes that history and physical examination of the petitioner was done. He has no physical signs and no history of concern for HPV or any other infection in the body. Therefore, the bogey that is projected by the complainant/wife that the husband has some physical problem appears to be a white lie.

From Para 9,

9. The other bogey projected by the wife is that the petitioner has closed all channels of communications and had never shown any interest in getting the complainant to the USA, this is completely belied by the documents appended to the petition itself, as not one but four appointments were taken by the petitioner for VISA purposes of the wife. The first appointment after the petitioner left to the USA was on 13-10-2020. There are four appointments, confirmation acknowledgments of which are produced by the petitioner as annexures to the petition. They are dated 13-10-2020, 02-03-2021, 07-05-2021 and 24-05-2021;
It is on the 5th appointment, the complainant goes before the visa office and Visa is granted to the complainant, which is also appended as document to the petition. These are documents which speak for themselves. A mail communication on 05-12-2021 is quoted hereinabove. The complainant seeks confirmation regarding her travel to USA. Therefore, it is clearly a bogey projected by the complainant that the petitioner was not interested in getting her to the USA and had blocked all channels; but the documents speak otherwise. The attitude of the complainant also speaks for itself.
Therefore, it is not a case where there is an iota of ingredient against the petitioner/husband for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It is misuse and abuse of criminal justice system by the complainant right from the word go.

Para 10,

10. This Court has completely considered the complaint, summary of the charge sheet, the statements recorded and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. All this exercise is undertaken only to arrive at a conclusion as to any of the ingredients of the offences are met or otherwise. The unmistakable conclusion is that, the complainant in gross misuse and abuse of law has set the criminal law into motion. Such frivolous cases registered by the wife have taken enormous judicial time, be it before the concerned Court or before this Court, and has led to enormous civil unrest, destruction of harmony and happiness in the society. It may not be that these would be the facts in every given case. The Court is only concerned about frivolous and vexatious litigations clogging the criminal justice delivery system, where genuine cases lie in cold storage. If the facts narrated hereinabove are noticed and as observed, the complainant has, in gross misuse and abuse of the process of the law, has set the criminal law into motion. Therefore, it becomes a fit case where the husband must be given liberty to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution or initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the IPC. Liberty is thus reserved to the husband, for such action to be initiated in accordance with law, if he so desires.

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

List of Quash judgments is here and List of Perjury judgments is here.

Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 19 Jul 2024

Posted on September 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) held that along with notice under 41A CrPC (Section 35 BNSS), a copy of the FIR must be sent along.

From Para 9,

This notice does have clarity as to why the petitioner is being summoned. The matter could be disposed of recording the fact that the second notice does contain the crime number, as the issue may seem to be very simple. In the considered view of the Court, it is not, as Section 41 of the Cr.P.C., deals with arrest of persons. Any notice so issued under Section 41-A if not complied with, the Station House Officer is entitled to arrest the noticee. Therefore, the noticee must be aware of why he is being summoned to the Police Station, as summoning to the Police Station is not summoning a person to a happy place. A citizen must know as to why he is being summoned. The information to the citizen cannot be half baked; it must be in full. The notice must contain the crime number and the purpose for which he is being summoned. While it can be transmitted electronically, no fault can be found with that, but it should mention crime number. The duty of the Station House Officer would not stop at mentioning crime number, but he should also attach to the communication, a copy of the FIR, so registered against the noticee, as power is available to summon the accused or any person in connection with a crime. Therefore, the noticee, without knowing the crime number and without getting a copy of the FIR, cannot be asked to appear before an officer of the police station on receipt of notice under Section 41-A.

From Para 10,

Sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 35 of the BNSS assume significance. Section 35(4) permits issuance of a notice to any person and the noticee shall be bound to comply with the terms of the notice. Section 35(6) commands that if a person fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the Police Officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by the competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. Therefore, the rigour is little stronger. Stronger the rigour, the noticee is required to know all that he has to reply, prior to his appearance before the Police. It, thus, becomes mandatory for a notice to be issued under Section 35 of the BNSS to mention the crime number, the offence alleged in the crime so registered and necessarily append to it a copy of the FIR so registered, as any person who receives the notice must be aware for what he is being summoned to the Police Station.

From Para 13,

13. It is made clear that till the guidelines/check list is so notified by the State, if any person is necessary to be summoned, the drill that shall be followed are:-
(a) The notice under Section 35 of the BNSS shall mention the crime number and the offence alleged in the crime number. This can be communicated to the noticee either through the conventional method or through electronic mode.
(b) The communication shall attach copy of the FIR so registered, as the FIR would contain the gist of the complaint.
(c) In the event notice does not contain the crime number, the offence alleged or appending of the FIR, subject to just exceptions, the noticee is not obliged to appear before the officer who has directed him to appear and no coercive action can be taken for non-appearance.
(d) It is also necessary for the Police Department to bring about robust system for the FIR being uploaded immediately on their registration and make it search friendly.

Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad AND State of Karnataka on 19 Jul 2024

Other remedies to police atrocities are here.

Roshan Lal Tickoo Vs Predimant Krishan Tickoo on 02 Aug 2024

Posted on August 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladhak High Court at Srinagar held as follows,

From Pars 9-10,

9. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that before initiating an enquiry into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C, the Court has to frame an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so, whereafter the Court has to record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing. The same has to be sent to the Magistrate of 1st Class having the jurisdiction.
10. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C makes a reference to the offences punishable under Section 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 2011 and 228 of IPC when such offences are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court. The aforesaid offences fall under Chapter (XI) of the Indian Penal Code which relate to false evidence and offences against public justice. Thus, it is important for a Court to frame an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to hold an enquiry with regard to commission of aforesaid offences if the same appear to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in a Court.

From Para 13,

13. From the analysis of the legal position on the subject, it is clear that preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C can be directed only if in the opinion of the Court, it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so when it appears that the offence of perjury in relation to court proceedings has been committed. Thus, two conditions are necessary for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C, first that the offence of perjury in relation to court proceedings should appear to have been committed and secondly, in the opinion of the court it should be expedient in the interests of justice to hold such preliminary enquiry.

From Paras 14-15,

14. Coming to the present case, the respondents/applicants have alleged that the petitioner/non-applicant has made false statements in his petition which relate to estimated losses as per the audit conducted on account of unauthorized sale of 18 tanker lorries, decline in profits of the partnership firm, non-deposit of sale amount of the vehicles in the account of the partnership firm, respondent having entered into partnership without consent of the petitioner and sale of plot of land by respondent/applicant owned by the partnership firm at Channi Himmat, Jammu, unilaterally. The veracity of all these allegations is a matter in issue before the Arbitral Tribunal. It is, therefore, yet to be determined as to whether the aforesaid allegations made by the petitioner in his petition under Section 9 of the Act are false.
15. It is not a case where the petitioner is stated to have made any contradictory statements in his pleadings but it is a case where he has made certain allegations, the veracity of which is yet to be determined. Had it been a case of contradictory stands having been taken by the petitioner in his pleadings, perhaps this Court would have been justified in holding a preliminary enquiry in terms of Section 340 of Cr. P. C at this stage itself but because the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition, which according to the respondent/applicant are false, is yet to be determined and there is no material on record to suggest that the same are, prima facie, false, this Court feels that the prayer of the respondents/applicants for initiating preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C cannot be considered at this stage. The same has to await the determination of the aforesaid issues by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Roshan Lal Tickoo Vs Predimant Krishan Tickoo on 02 Aug 2024

Index of perjury judgments is here.

Sundari Gautam Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 09 Aug 2024

Posted on August 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held that, a woman can also be an accused under POCSO Act, specifically for the offence of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault‟.

From Paras 25-27,

25. In the opinion of this court, a comparison of the offence defined in section 375 of the IPC (on the one hand) and in sections 3 and 5 of the POSCO Act (on the other) shows that the offences so defined are different. Though the acts that form the gravamen of the offence in section 375 of the IPC are the same as those in sections 3 and 5 of the POCSO Act, the opening line of section 375 specifically refers to a “man” whereas the opening line of section 3 refers to a “person”. The scope and meaning of the word “man” appearing in section 375 of the IPC is not under consideration of this court in the present proceedings. But there is no reason why the word “person” appearing section 3 of the POCSO Act should be read as referring only to a “male‟. It is accordingly held that the acts mentioned sections 3 and 5 of the POCSO Act are an offence regardless of the gender of the offender provided the acts are committed upon a child.
26. On a conjoint reading of the foregoing provisions of the POCSO Act, it is accordingly held that the word „he‟ appearing in section 3 of the POCSCO Act cannot be given a restrictive meaning, to say that it refers only to a „male‟; but must be given its intended meaning, namely that it includes within its ambit any offender irrespective of their gender.
27. As a sequitur to the above, on a prima-facie consideration of the material placed on record along with the chargesheet, in the opinion of this court, the offence of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault‟ is made-out against the petitioner, even though she is a woman; and the petitioner is therefore required to be put to trial for the offences as charged.

Sundari Gautam Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 09 Aug 2024

Santhosh Shat Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 06 Aug 2024

Posted on August 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Karnataka High Court held that, non-filing of certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to mark the electronic evidence is a curable defect and at any time during the trail a certificate can be produced.

From Para 6,

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that non-filing of certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to markthe electronic evidence is a curable defect. It is not that the document would not be entertainable at all, as at any time duringthe trail a certificate can be produced. He would contend that the petitioner has indulged in heinous act of sexual assault on the student, who was at that point in time 14 years old, being her teacher. Therefore, this Court on any ground should not interfere with the orders that are passed by the concerned Court, which are in tune with law and not contrary to law.

From Para 9,

The objection is that the CD could not have been marked in evidence, as there is no certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and if there is no such certificate it does not become an evidence and, therefore, marking of compact disc should be rejected. In the light of the objection so made by the petitioner, the prosecution filed additional charge sheet and appended this video along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act citing it as additional material to be marked through PWs-1, 2 and 3. Here again the petitioner objects contending that the certificate under Section 65-B is not by the Competent Authority.

From Paras 11 and 12,

The Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgments, would hold that electronic evidence can be marked at any time during the trial. The certificate under Section 65-B can be produced, which would neither vitiate the trial conducted on the basis of the electronic evidence nor enure to the benefit of the accused, to contend that no proceedings should be permitted to be proceeded further on the marking of the electronic evidence. The Apex Court in the case of T. NASEER supra has clearly held that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., is in the statute only for this purpose, as it is a voyage towards discovery of truth. Under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., marking of document, examination, re-examination, cross-examination and further cross-examination can take place. Therefore, the first glorified submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner tumbles down, as the evidence that is let in being the compact disc, without attaching to it a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, does not and did not vitiate the proceedings.
12. It appears that due to serious objection of the petitioner, the prosecution took recourse to another route of marking it by way of supplementary charge sheet. In fact what is produced is not a supplementary charge sheet after further investigation as is done in the normal parlance. It is termed as supplementary charge sheet, but what it appends to it is only the compact disc, with the certificate under Section 65-B. This cannot give a right in favour of the petitioner to contend that after the commencement of evidence there cannot be production of supplementary charge sheet. While
there can be no quarrel about the contention of the petitioner that once evidence would commence after framing of charges, there cannot be a supplementary charge sheet, as that right ceases or freezes in favour of the prosecution, the day charges are framed. Alteration of charge can happen at any time during the trial under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C., but not an additional charge sheet. In the case at hand, it is not an additional charge sheet or a supplementary charge sheet. Only the compact disc is marked along with the certificate, that too because the petitioner objected contending that the compact disc could not be marked without Section 65-B certificate. The submissions of the learned High Court Government Pleader overpowers what the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended, as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner runs counter to what the Apex Court has held in the judgments supra.

Santhosh Shat Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 06 Aug 2024

Balamuraly G Vs Vinod TR and Anr on 26 Oct 2023

Posted on August 5, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held as follows.

From Para 6,

6. True, section 397 of the Code confers concurrent jurisdiction to the High Court as well as the Sessions Court to call for and examine the records of any proceedings before an inferior criminal court situated within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order rendered in such proceedings. When the power of revision is concurrent, it may not be illegal for a person to approach the High Court instead of the Sessions Court with a prayer for revision of an order. A Full Bench of this Court considered in Sivan Pillai v. Rajamohan and others [1978 KLT 223] the question whether a revision, where it is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 397(1) of the Code, in the High Court as well as a Sessions Court, should be pinned down to the Sessions Court. The view taken by the majority is that the salutary principle that where concurrent jurisdiction is conferred on two fora, the lower forum should be exhausted first has to be given a go by in view of the specific provision conferring jurisdiction by Section 397(1) of the Code both on the High Court and the Sessions Courts. That is the law. But
propriety demands the aggrieved, as far as possible, to first invoke the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. It is apposite to approach the Sessions Court first for another reason also. That, the parties might be located in the Sessions Division concerned. In a revision petition any order, which causes prejudice to the accused, can be passed, in view of Section 401(2) of the Code, only after giving notice to him. Where the accused resides in a far away Sessions Division he has to be drawn to the High Court as though the matter can be heard and decided by the Sessions Court concerned without causing such an inconvenience. Therefore, it is just and appropriate for a party to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions first, where the revision is possible by both the High Court and the Sessions Court, albeit there is no bar for the High Court to entertain the revision filed without exhaustion of the lower forum.

Balamuraly G Vs Vinod TR and Anr on 26 Oct 2023

Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022

Posted on August 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of AP High Court held as follows,

From Para 9,

9. This Court has gone through the said judgment. It did not hold that simultaneous proceedings under different enactments cannot be made. In fixing quantum of maintenance, it would be relevant in bringing to notice of the Court about filing of parallel proceedings for maintenance.
Further the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha 2, it is held,
“Directions on overlapping jurisdictions: It is well settled that a wife can make a claim for maintenance under different statutes. For instance, there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the D.V.Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., or under H.M.A. It would, however, be inequitable to direct the husband to pay maintenance under each of the proceedings, independent of the relief granted in a previous proceeding. If maintenance is awarded to the wife in a previously instituted proceeding, she is under a legal obligation to disclose the same in a subsequent proceeding for maintenance, which may be filed under another enactment. While deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the civil court/family court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant.
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, we direct that in a subsequent maintenance proceeding, the applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, so that the Court would take into consideration the maintenance already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount. If the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding.”

Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022

Citations : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6521 AP

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70415177/

https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/andhra-high-court/2022/september/2022-latest-caselaw-6521-ap

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?CaseId=402202795000&Title=RAGIMANI-GANGADHAR-Vs.-RAGIMANI-PADMAVATHI

https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00200055810

Index of Domestic Violence cases is here.

Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

Posted on July 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of the Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Paras 3-6,

3. Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent herself filed a petition vide FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and the same was decreed on 12.04.2018 and the said order and decree attained finality. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is not permissible. In support of his contentions he has relied on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Miyan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1. There are no allegations, much less specific allegations against the petitioners 2 and 3 herein, who are the aged parents of A-1.
4. The 2nd respondent has filed counter affidavit stating that she has filed FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 and the same was decreed and she has received an amount of Rs.2 lakhs as per the settlement taken place between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. She has also filed a petition vide M.C.No.39 of 2020 and also O.P.No.831 of 2018 on behalf of her son K.Naga Satya Sai towards maintenance and the said OP was closed on receipt of said amount of Rs.2 lakhs.
5. With the said submissions, the 2nd respondent specifically contended that she has no interest in continuing the present proceedings in Cr.No.800 of 2019 against the petitioners herein.
6. Considering the said aspects and also the fact that the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the 2nd respondent was dissolved vide decree and order dt.12.04.2018 in FCOP.No.1267 of 2017 and in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Miyan’s case (supra) and also considering the contents of the counter affidavit, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings 2019(1) ALT (Crl.)276 (SC) in Cr.No.800 of 2019, pending on the file of WPS, DD, Hyderabad, against the petitioners herein are quashed.

Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81574210/

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

Shikha Vs Avaneesh Mahodaya on 10 Sep 2024

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 19 Jul 2024

Roshan Lal Tickoo Vs Predimant Krishan Tickoo on 02 Aug 2024

Sundari Gautam Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 09 Aug 2024

Santhosh Shat Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 06 Aug 2024

Balamuraly G Vs Vinod TR and Anr on 26 Oct 2023

Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022

Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021