Arige Venkataramaiah Vs State of Telangana on 20 Dec 2023

Posted on February 7, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held that, the court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused.

From Para 5,

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ in short), the Court can issue a warrant in writing and under sub-section (2) thereof, every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed. The petitioner claims to have filed the application for recall of the NBW and it is his case that the accused can be represented by his counsel and he need not be present physically during the proceedings when the application for recall of NBW is being considered. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of R.Sundar Vs. The Sub Inspector of Police (1 supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed that the presence of the accused need not be insisted upon during the proceedings for recall of NBW.

Arige Venkataramaiah Vs State of Telangana on 20 Dec 2023

Index of NBW judgments here.

S.Sundar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 02 Mar 2016

Posted on February 7, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court held that, the court can recall NBW without insisting upon the presence of the accused.

From paras 7-9,

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this branch of law, there is march of law. Earlier, there used to be not entertaining such recall petitions when the accused was not present in the court. This conception of compulsion of the presence of accused has been departed because
of change in the judicial thinking. The fact that the accused, who is stated to have eluded has since engaged a counsel and wanted to participate in the criminal proceedings had effect on the courts.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without insisting upon the presence of the accused, the court can recall NBW. I hasten to add that the courts can impose certain conditions, but it should not be harsh or conditions should not be to terrorise the accused. In support of his said view, the learned counsel would cite the following decisions:
(i) VALAMPURI JOHN V. PETER JAMES [1997(2) MWN (CR.) 196
(ii) VALIULLAZ SHERIF V. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, NELLORE [2000(3) MWN 28
(iii) SIRUGUDUGU NAGA VENKATA DURGAKUMARI V. SIRUGUDU JHANSILAKSHMI [(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1668]
(iv) INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS [(2007) 12 SCC 1]
9. Courts must protect the rights of the accused. But, atthe same time, the court has to see that the offenders are prosecuted. This legal philosophy could be seen as a currentjudicial thing [SANJAY CHANDRA VS.C.B.I [2012(1)SCC 40] also known as 2G scam case. While striking a balance between thesetwo extremes, cause of justice cannot be compromised. Now the fear of the petitioner is that as and when he shows his face, there is possibility of he being sent to jail. When he filesrecall petition, it is an indication that he will participate in the court proceedings. At the same time, there is fear ofpsychosis on the prosecution that the accused may put bottle necks in the administration of criminal justice. Now the law is very clear. Accused cannot be asked to present in court as acondition precedent to recall the NBW.

S.Sundar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 02 Mar 2016

Index of NBW judgments here.

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Posted on January 31, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior bench held as follow:

The Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 considering the issues relating to grant of interim-maintenance, observed that the maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings of the parties and some amount of guess work. Both the parties submit scanty material and do not disclose correct details. Keeping that in view, the Supreme Court laid down the procedure to streamline grant of maintenance. These guidelines were laid down in exercise of power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of Constitution of India prescribing a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in every proceeding relating to maintenance.
The Supreme Court in case of Aditi alias Mithi versus Jitesh Sharma 2023 SCC Online SC 1451 expressing anguish over noncompliance/ improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for compliance thereof.
The copy of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities submitted by Balram Dixit and Kiran Dixit show that most of the entries are filled cursorily without providing requisite particulars. Consequently, learned Principal Judge could not consider availability of source of income with the parties and their standard of living before the matrimonial discord. Non-compliance with the guidelines in its true spirit and substance is not acceptable.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 is set aside with the direction that both the parties shall submit fresh Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra). Learned Additional Judge to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior shall ensure strict compliance with the guidelines. If any of the affidavit is lacking in requisite particulars, learned Judge shall demand relevant particulars from concerned party. This exercise shall be completed within 15 days. If any of the parties fails to comply with the directions, appropriate action with regard to non-compliance may be taken against such party. Learned Principal Judge on consideration of the affidavits and material on record, pass an order afresh on application for interim-maintenance.

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Index of Maintenance cases here.

Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023

Posted on January 31, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Patna High Court held as follow:

From Paras 6-10,

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that in the court below the applicant-petitioner did not submit any proof of income of her husband. Her husband (opposite party no.2) filed his salary details and the bank account of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi from which it appears that he was employed at Batra Hospital, Delhi in 2008 and was getting Rs.7524/- as salary till May, 2008. On the face of the discussions made in the impugned order, this Court has no doubt that the court has not followed the procedures which were mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra).
7. The aforesaid judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has been recently reiterated in the case of Aditi Alias Mithi (supra).
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedures prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah for fresh consideration and by following the procedures which are laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
10. The parties shall be given an opportunity to file their respective affidavits and pleadings within a reasonable period.

Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023

Index of Maintenance cases here.

Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023

Posted on January 31, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held as follow:

From Para 29-32, (Regarding issuing of arrest warrants without following procedure u/s 421 Cr.P.C.)

29. Now, coming to the next question regarding the failure of the Family Court in not following the procedure for levy of fines as contemplated under Section 421 of the Code.
30. Section 125 (3) extracted above, stipulates that in case of failure of a person to comply with an order to pay maintenance without sufficient cause, then for every breach, the Magistrate has to issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the same manner provided for levying fines.
32. It is well-settled in a whole line of precedents that the Courts shall not order a warrant of arrest against a defaulter, without following the procedure under Section 421 of the Code.

From Para 33,

33. Nonetheless, after the pronouncement of the celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), a revolutionary change has been brought in the procedure to be followed by the courts in dealing with the applications filed under Chapter IX of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive procedural and normative directions streamlining the maintenance laws, inter alia, directing that the parties in a maintenance application have to file affidavits of disclosure of their assets and liabilities, which must be considered by Courts while deciding the application. It is also held that, in case of a dispute on the declaration made in the affidavits of disclosure, the aggrieved person can seek leave of the Court to serve interrogatories on the opposite side and seek production of relevant documents as provided under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in case a false statement or misrepresentation is made, the Court can initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code or for contempt of court.
34. In the instant case, the Family Court, following the directions laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), directed both parties to file their affidavits of disclosure in the original proceedings. The revision petitioner filed his affidavit stating that he had no movable or immovable properties. Again, on the execution side, the Family Court directed the first respondent to file an affidavit regarding the assets of the revision petitioner, and she reiterated that the revision petitioner had no assets or properties. Based on the affirmation in the affidavits, that the revision petitioner had no movable or immovable properties, the Family Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the revision petitioner. I do not find any error or illegality in the procedure adopted by the Family Court in the post-Rajnesh era. Once a party declares on oath that he has no movable and immovable properties, it would be an empty formality to follow the procedure under Section 421 because, ultimately, the enquiry by the revenue authorities would yield the same result as disclosed by the parties on solemn affirmation. The exposition of the law in Rajnesh was to remove the stumbling blocks in the procedure and the inordinate delay being caused in the disposal of maintenance applications and the enforcement of the orders. It is trite, that procedural laws are handmaids of justice. Therefore, the dispensation of the procedure under Section 421 of the Code, in a case where the respondent disclosed that he has no movable or immovable property, is justifiable and sustainable in law. In the emerged scenario post Rajnesh, I do not find any meaningful purpose in the Courts ritualistically following the procedure under Section 421, especially after the respondent states on oath that he has no property, other than to prolong the miseries of the persons living in vagrancy.

Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023

Index of Maintenance cases here.

Jaspreet Kaur Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 12 Dec 2023

Posted on January 19, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of Delhi High Court held as follows, wrt usage of section 91 Cr.P.C.

From Para 14,

14. The Division Bench of Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Special Police Establishment v. Umesh Tiwari 2022 SCC OnLine MP 100 had enlisted the ingredients of Section 91 of Cr.P.C., and had also observed that the right to invoke Section 91 is not limited only to the Court and Police, but also to the victim, accused and/or any other stakeholder. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder for reference:
“4.3 Language employed in Section 91 reveals following foundational ingredients and characteristics:-
(i) Section 91 is meant to be invoked for producing documents/other things by way of summon.
(ii) Section 91 can be invoked at any stage of investigation, inquiry, trial or even other proceedings under the Cr.P.C.
(iii) Section 91 does not expressly provide as to who can invoke this provision.
(iv) However, the language of Section 91 implies that it can be invoked by the Court or the Officer in-charge of the Police Station concerned.
(v) And this invocation can be done when the Court or the Police is of the view that production is necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Cr.P.C.
(vi) The satisfaction regarding necessity or desirability of the Court or the Police is sine qua non for invoking this provision.
(vii) The production of document or other thing is to be made before the Court if directed by the Court or before the officer if directed by Police Officer. ***
4.5 From the aforesaid analysis, it is vivid that it would not be proper to restrict the right to invoke Section 91 to only the Court and the Police Officer. The window of Section 91 will have to remain open for all the stakeholders in an investigation, inquiry, trial and other proceedings, be it the victim, accused, police, Court or any other stakeholders involved.

From Para 15,

15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), while examining the issue of when an accused would be entitled to file an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., had discussed the concept of “necessity‟ and “desirability‟ of production of a document or any other thing. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court read as under:
“25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is “necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code”.
The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it, whether police or accused…”

Jaspreet Kaur Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 12 Dec 2023

Sajith N.K. Vs Jishabai Puthukudi and Anr on 03 Aug 2023

Posted on January 16, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of Kerala High Court held that, perjury application cannot be filed u/s 200 Cr.P.C. but has to be initiated u/s 340(1) Cr.P.C.

From Para 7,

7. Here is a case where the respondent No.1 instead of approaching the court concerned (Family Court) where false evidence was given, straightaway approached the Magistrate Court with a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. It is impermissible. A party who is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the court, where offences enumerated in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was committed, in initiating action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., can only move to such court with an application under Section 340(1). He cannot directly move the jurisdictional Magistrate Court with a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. [See K.A.Kuttiah v. The Federal Bank Ltd. and Others (2006 KHC 715) and Shaji Thomas v. State of Kerala and Another (2014 KHC 2532)]. Hence, the court below was not justified in taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 196, 199, 200 and 209 of IPC based on Annexure 1 complaint. Thus, Annexure 2 order is not legally sustainable, and it is accordingly set aside. However, the respondent No.1 will be at liberty to file an application under Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C at the Family Court. If such an application is filed, the Family Court shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.

Sajith N.K. Vs Jishabai Puthukudi and Anr on 03 Aug 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Perjury judgments is here.

Harish Chander @ Suraj Bhatt Vs State NCT of Delhi on 06 Dec 2023

Posted on December 26, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of Delhi High Court held as follows while disposing a Regular Bail petition,

From Paras 8 to 13,

8. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that a perusal of the statement of the victim, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., reveals that the accused herein had introduced himself, to the complainant/mother and the victim, as a munshi of a Judge of the High Court of Delhi; and that he could get their work done i.e. get them compensation by asking the Judge with whom he was attached. Thereafter, he had insisted on procuring the nude videos of the victim, on the pretext of showing them to the Judge Sahab. victim in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The victim had also disclosed that the applicant had made her talk to ‘Judge Sahab’ on a conference call after which the applicant had asked the victim to prepare two nude videos of 15 minutes each and had also told her how to prepare such videos. Later on, he had started blackmailing the complainant and had demanded Rs. 25,000/-, for deleting the videos. He had also threatened them, that in case he will not be paid money, he will post the said videos on social media, and send these to High Court and Supreme Court. He had kept on continuously sending the videos and photographs to the family members of the victim, and had also threatened them with dire consequences.
9. A perusal of the FSL report reveals that though the mobile phone which was used for the commission of offence had been formatted, the phone had been sent for cyber forensic analysis and the Cyber Forensic Division of Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi has given a finding that obscene images and video files were retrieved from the mobile phone in question belonging to the present accused. Thus, thanks to the advanced technology, that the investigation revealed the prima facie truth of statement of the victim. The detailed forensic report is not being reproduced or discussed in the present order, lest it affects the trial of the case, at a later stage.
10. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is unlikely that the mother of the victim would herself prepare the nude photographs of her daughter. Further, in light of the specific allegation that the accused herein had misrepresented to the victim that he was making her speak to a High Court Judge, and that he was working with a High Court Judge, who will ensure that compensation is granted in a pending case before a District Court when the videos will be sent to the Judge, are in themselves grave and serious allegations, which undoubtedly bring the judicial system into disrepute. It also reflects how unassuming or illiterate persons are allured in the name of the Judges for blackmailing and for commission of offences, as the present one.
11. This Court also notes that in case the present case was not registered or the truth was not brought out through police investigation and FSL report, the accused herein would have succeeded in giving an impression that the judicial system was indulging in such abhorring acts. The judicial system or the name of any judge or judicial officer used by unscrupulous persons brings disrepute to the system which cannot be allowed at any cost. This case and order would also serve as a reminder that general public should not believe unscrupulous persons and give them money, even if they are assured that they will get some work done from within the judicial system by such payment. Such persons and such acts are a threat to the judicial system which shake the faith of the community in the judicial system. The justice delivery system has to be stubbornly safeguarded from such acts and persons.
12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the conduct of the accused, and the fact that charges are yet to be framed and the victim is yet to be examined, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage.
13. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.

Harish Chander @ Suraj Bhatt Vs State NCT of Delhi on 06 Dec 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Kamisetty Pedda Venkata Subbamma and Anr Vs Chinna Kummagandla Venkataiah on 21 Dec 2004

Posted on December 23, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Following his own decision here, Justice S.R.K. Prasad of AP High Court, held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Adverting to the same, I have perused the record.
The contention of the revision petitioners that the revision petitioners presented the written arguments, appears to be correct. The Rent Control Appellate Court has failed to consider the written arguments presented on behalf of landlords before the Court. This Court has observed at Paragraph 6 in the decision referred above which is as follows:
“I have perused the written arguments. None of the contentions raised in the written arguments are considered. In fact, the decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and Patna High Court have been cited in the written arguments. The same does not find place in the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. The lower Appellate Court shall keep in mind that written arguments are submitted not for fancy sake. It is a right conferred by the statue to a party to submit the written arguments which are meant for consideration and adjudication. No Court shall ignore the written arguments and refuse to consider the same. If it were to do so, they are liable for action by the Superior Courts. This is nothing short of judicial dishonesty. A Judge is not supposed to exhibit such dishonesty. A Judge is supposed to exhibit extreme patience and give long rope and hear arguments and then pronounce his
decision after adjudicating the matter. I find that this is a classic case where the Judge refused to consider the written arguments. He has not considered the decisions cited before him. In such cases, the judgment should not be upheld. It deserves to be set aside since no party can be allowed to leave the Court with dissatisfaction for non-consideration of his arguments. If such things were to happen, the litigant public certainly loses confidence in the judicial systems. I am of the considered view that the Appellate Court”s judgment shall not stand for judicial scrutiny before this Court for the learned Judge”s failure to consider the written arguments and adjudicate the matter in the light of the written arguments which lead to miscarriage of justice.”
The written arguments were not considered. One should remember that the Courts existed for rendering justice in accordance with law, but not in accordance whims and fancies. In case the material placed by the Counsel, is ignored, the litigant public who approaches the Courts with fond hope of getting justice, will lose confidence in the judicial system. Judges must keep in kind that it is their duty to go through the written arguments, advert to them and refer them in the course of the judgment by giving answers. In the present case, the written arguments are not adverted to. When the Judge does not mind through the written arguments and advert to the same in the judgment, it cannot be said that fair hearing has been given by the Judge. In such cases, the revisional authority has to correct the mistake committed by the Appellate Authority and the things have to be put in order. Two options are open for this Court viz., (1) the revisional Court has to take the burden of rehearing the entire matter and arrive at the conclusion and render the justice (2) the revisional Court has to send back the matter to the Appellate Judge for reconsideration.

Kamisetty Pedda Venkata Subbamma and Anr Vs Chinna Kummagandla Venkataiah on 21 Dec 2004

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1249841/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f84de4b0149711141f93

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/930117-kamisetty-pedda-venkata-subbamma-and?s=Kamisetty%20Pedda%20Venkata%20Subbamma&refine_search=&s_acts=

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Posted on December 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

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

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. I have perused the written arguments. None of the contentions raised in the written arguments are considered. In fact, the decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and Patna High Court have been cited in the written arguments. The same does not find place in the judgment of the appellate Tribunal. The lower appellate Court shall keep in mind that written arguments are submitted not for fancy sake. It is a right conferred by the statute to a party to submit the written arguments which are meant for consideration and adjudication. No Court shall ignore the written arguments and refuse to consider the same. If it were to do so, they are liable for action by the superior Courts. This is nothing short of judicial dishonesty. A judge is not supposed to exhibit such dishonesty. A judge is supposed to exhibit extreme patience and give long rope and hear arguments and then pronounce his decision after adjudicating the matter. I find that this is a classic case where the judge refused to consider the written arguments. He has not considered the decisions cited before him. In such cases, the judgment should not be upheld. It deserves to be set aside since no party can be allowed to leave the Court with dissatisfaction for non-consideration of his arguments. If such things were to happen, the litigant public certainly loses confidence in the judicial system. I am of the considered view that the appellate Court’s judgment shall not stand for judicial scrutiny before this Court for the learned Judge’s failure to consider the written arguments and adjudicate the matter in the light of the written arguments which lead to miscarriage of justice.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A No. 13 of 1992 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. It shall consider every point raised in the written arguments by traversing through the necessary material namely evidence including oral and documentary and give answer to every point and adjudicate the same as expeditiously as possible. Both the parties are directed to appear before the appellate Tribunal on 1.4.2003. In view of the direction for their appearance, there is no need to issue a fresh notice to both the parties. Costs shall abide by the result of the appeal.

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003

Citations: [(2003) 02 AP CK 0073], [2003 (3) ALT 127], [2003 (1) LS 324]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/17028650/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48cbc607dba348ffee82e

https://lextechsuite.com/G-JAYA-RAO-VERSUS-STATE-OF-AP-2003-02-01

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/947782-g-jay-rao-vs-state

This was followed in this subsequent case here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

Arige Venkataramaiah Vs State of Telangana on 20 Dec 2023

S.Sundar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 02 Mar 2016

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023

Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023

Jaspreet Kaur Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 12 Dec 2023

Sajith N.K. Vs Jishabai Puthukudi and Anr on 03 Aug 2023

Harish Chander @ Suraj Bhatt Vs State NCT of Delhi on 06 Dec 2023

Kamisetty Pedda Venkata Subbamma and Anr Vs Chinna Kummagandla Venkataiah on 21 Dec 2004

G.Jaya Rao Vs State of A.P. Land Reforms Srikakulam on 21 Feb 2003