A Special Court dealing with POCSO cases, held as follows and acquitted a father who is accused of raping his daughter.
From Para 7,
7. Settled position of law that sole testimony of the victim alone if found reliable is sufficient to convict the accused.
From Para 13,
It is also settled position that the child can be easily tutored.
Single judge bench of Delhi High Court held that the Court has to balance the rights of the aggrieved person and the parents-in-law when the question of residence arises for the aggrieved person while her marital relationship subsists.
From Paras 24 and 25,
24. Admittedly where the parties are residing is a flat, having only three bed rooms, a drawing room and the appellant is in possession of a room in the said flat, then considering there are various complaints filed by them against each other; their relations being not cordial, would it in such circumstances, be appropriate for them to stay together and fight every minute of their existence. In Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) in para No.90 the Court had observed we need to strike a balance between the rights of daughter-in-law and her in-laws.
25. Admittedly, the right of residence under Section 19 of the DV Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. In this case, both being senior citizens of aged about 74 and 69 years and being in the evening of their life, are entitled to live peacefully and not to be haunted by the marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law.
From Para 27,
27. Thus, where the residence is a shared household, it does not create any embargo upon the owner to claim eviction against his daughter-in-law. A strained frictional relationship between the parties would be relevant to decide whether the grounds of eviction exist. I am of the considered opinion, since there exist a frictional relationship between the parties, then at the fag end of their lives it would not be advisable for old parents to stay with appellant and hence it would be appropriate if an alternative accommodation is provided to the appellant as is directed in the impugned order per Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
And finally from Para 28,
28. Thus, there is no force in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. The undertaking made at Bar to provide an alternative accommodation to the appellant till her matrimony exists be filed in the form of an affidavit of the respondent within two weeks from today before the learned Trial Court. The execution of decree be postponed till such suitable alternative accommodation is found and the applicant is conveniently shifted therein. The learned Trial Court to impose conditions in case of non-payment of rental including electricity /water charges etc by respondent.
Citations : [2022 SCC ONLINE DEL 594]
Other Sources :
https://caselaw.in/delhi/shared-household-ravneet-kaur-prithpal-singh-dhingra/16/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6217abd79fca1954d2a81a9a
Relying on Apex Court’s Surinder Mohan Vikal decision, Calcutta High Court held as follows:
In the instant case, the cause of action arose from the date when First Information Report was registered and not from the date on which the complainant was acquitted from the charge.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50050401/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5faa5a1c4653d02a0b1309ab
Relying on Apex Court’s Surinder Mohan Vikal decision, Delhi High Court held that if any offence is made out in a complaint under Section 500 IPC for defamation, Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. is attracted and cognizance of offence should be taken within a period of three years from the date of occurrence.
Citations : [2011 DLT 182 221], [2012 CRICC 1 85], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 4 735], [2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 2664], [2011 RCR CRI 4 735]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10503637/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090e0ae4b014971117b1c7
Another misinterpretation of Section 3 of DP… this time from Allahabad High Court.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44284755/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/60f50c979fca193a50689444
News:
https://lawtrend.in/dowry-prohibition-act-protects-dowry-giver-allahabad-hc/
https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/MTA2NzU=/Dowry-Prohibition-Act-Protects-Dowry-Giver-Allahabad-HC
A single bench decision from Telangana High Court passed these guidelines.
Hence, this Court feels that an alternative mechanism shall be evolved to address the plight of these under-trial prisoners / accused:
- Parties Advocates shall download the order copy from the High Court’s Website along with case details which are available in the case status information
- While filing the memo on behalf of accused for furnishing sureties, the Advocate shall state in the Memo that he / she has downloaded the order copy from the High Court’s Website. The Administrative Officer Chief Ministerial Officer of the Court concerned shall verify the order from the High Court’s Website and make an endorsement to that effect and then shall place the same before the Court.
- The Public Prosecutor shall also obtain necessary instructions in this regard and assist the Court.
- The Presiding Officer, on the same day, shall dispose of the same and dispatch the release order to the jail authorities concerned forthwith through e-mail or any other electronic mode.
- In cases of anticipatory bail, the burden to verify the authenticity of the copy is on the Station House Officer concerned and if necessary, he should obtain necessary instructions from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and complete the process on the same day expeditiously as per law.
- The jail authorities on receipt of the release order shall release the accused forthwith.
- Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to:
- The Principal Secretary for Home Affairs, State of Telangana,
- The Director General of Police, State of Telangana,
- The Director of Prosecution, who, in turn, shall sensitize the police officers Station House Officers / Public Prosecutors and ensure implementation of this order
- Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate copy of this order to all the Principal District Judges in the State, who, in turn, shall sensitize all the Presiding Officers and ensure implementation of this order.
- Registrar (Judicial) is further directed to circulate the copy of this order to all the Bar Associations in the State through the Principal District Judges, so that they can effectively address their client’s cause.
- Registrar (Judicial) shall also issue a separate notification in this regard and the same shall be displayed in the High Court’s Website.
- These directions will apply to all bail application including bails in Criminal Revision as well as Criminal Appeals.
This order shall come into force from 22.11.2021.
A police officer was punished with 1 day imprisonment (suspended the same so that an appeal may be filed) for breaching Arnesh Kumar Guidelines.
From Paras 1 and 2,
1. The court has already held R-3 guilty of committing contempt of court. He arrested the petitioner in breach of directions passed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1277/2014. The requisite notice was not served upon the petitioner. There were mere allegations of criminal breach of trust against the petitioner, which entailed a maximum sentence of three years. It did not warrant the arrest of a person in the manner in which it was done. The petitioner’s own complaints to the police were not responded to. The highhandedness of the police officer, in specific breach of the Supreme Court’s directions is evident. Arnesh Kumar (supra) holds that in the event of non-service of notice under section 41A of the Cr.P.C., contempt proceedings would be initiated.
2. The petitioner’s right to personal liberty is ensured by the Constitution of India. It can be curtained only by a procedure prescribed established by law. The Supreme Court has said in Arnesh Kumar that notice under s. 41A Cr.P.C. is requisite. The notice was not served. The law has been breached. It is not the petitioner only who has suffered the humiliation and the indignity of being arrested; the ordeal would have affected the reputation of his family i.e. his children, wife and parents. No amount of explanation to the neighbours or those who may have seen the arrest, would undo the
embarrassment and indignity suffered by the petitioner and his relatives. Arrest and incarceration destroys a person and collaterally affects many other innocent relatives. Subsequent release or acquittal of an innocent, is of no solace and offers no reparation to the loss of reputation or for the temporary loss of precious personal liberty. A stigma gets attached to the person who has been taken away, detained and/or put behind bars by the police. R-3 is deemed to have due knowledge of the rights of a citizen and the procedure prescribed in law.
Law point held by Kerala High Court is: The principle of locus standi is alien to criminal jurisprudence
From Para 2,
2. Petitioner is the wife of the injured in a road traffic accident. It is alleged that on 16.10.2021, petitioner’s husband Thankachan, a carpenter by avocation, sustained injuries while proceeding to the place of work travelling on the pillion seat of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-32/Q-0114 ridden by the accused, through Elamakkara-Puthukkalavattom Road; in front of Skyline Apartments, due to the rash and negligent riding as to endanger human life, since he had abruptly twisted, the vehicle capsized and her husband fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately rushed to the MAJ Hospital, Edappally. Ext.P1 indicates that Thankachan was taken there at 9.20 am on 16.10.2021 with the alleged history of road traffic accident. Ext.P2 discharge summary indicates that on the same day, he was taken to the Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Lisie hospital where he was admitted with the history of pain and swelling on left ankle following alleged history of road traffic accident. Diagnosis was fracture trimalleolar left ankle for which he underwent surgery on 19.10.2021 and was discharged on 21.10.2021. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite Ext.P1 intimation given by the CMO, MAJ Hospital to the Sub Inspector, Elamakkara Police Station, crime was not registered. It is alleged that on 11.11.2021, petitioner lodged a complaint before the City Police Commissioner, Ernakulam which also was not acted upon and thus, on 19.1.2022, she approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva. It is specifically averred that after sustaining grievous injuries, her husband is in immobile stage and is under complete rest and thus, she approached the court alleging offences under Sections 279, 337
and 338 IPC. But astonishingly enough, the complaint was returned stating that ‘the petition was filed by the wife of the complainant’. The most disturbing aspect is that a note seen put on the last page of the complaint, as follows:-“19/01/22
Verified within the jurisdiction. Receipt of complaint at Commissioner Office is not seen produced. Hence for orders.
Id/-
Petition filed by wife of the complainant. Hence may be returned, for orders.
Id/-
Returned
sd/-”
It is clear that the signed order was passed by the Magistrate. It is pointed out that the Magistrate has returned the complaint on the premise that it was filed by the wife of the complainant which is illegal.
From Para 4,
4. I have no doubt that the order passed by the Magistrate is illegal and unsustainable. It is the settled proposition of law that criminal law can be set in motion by any person. Here, on the ground that after sustaining grievous hurt, her husband is unable to move out and hence, she has taken initiative to prefer the complaint. The principle of locus standi is alien to criminal jurisprudence.
From Para 5,
5. More disturbing is the Court acting upon office notes put up by the ministerial staff. This Court takes strong exception to such a conduct. In judicial matters, the staff members cannot make any note or suggestion. The learned Magistrate has not applied his mind before returning the complaint. The reason stated is illegal. The order is quashed and the Magistrate is directed to entertain the complaint and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of seven days from today.
A single judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that,
At the same time, it cannot be ignored that acceptance of the CD in question shall amount to a clear breach of fundamental right of the petitioner-wife i.e., her right to privacy, as has been upheld in various judicial pronouncements. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in People’s Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India, (1997)1 SCC 301, has observed as under:-
“18. The right to privacy- by itself- has not been identified under the Constitution. As a concept it may be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given case would depend on the facts of the said case. But the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as “right to privacy”. Conversations on the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character. Telephone-conversation is a part of modern man’s life. It is considered so important that more and more people are carrying mobile telephone instruments in their pockets. Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man’s private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone-conversation in the privacy of one’s home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.”
Thus, recording of telephonic conversation of the wife without her knowledge, is a clear cut infringement of her privacy.
Citations:
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195720592/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/635a65aef364724175a72b6e
This decision is appealed at Apex Court here and it was allowed also.
A single-judge bench of Patna High Court held as follows,
It appears from the averment made in the instant petition that at the relevant time the petitioner was Managing Director and whole time Director of the Company and the complaint was filed by Registrar of the Company under section 58(A) of the Companies Act read with Rule-3 (i)(a) proviso (i) Rule 10 of the Company within (Acceptance and Deposits) Rules, 1975. The reason for rejection of the application under Section 205 Cr. P.C. as appears from Annexure-2 that the offence is non-bailable. The court below committed error of jurisdiction in ignoring the fact that in the instant case after taking cognizance, summon was issued by the court below and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Harsh Das case reported in 1998(1) PLJR 502, the court was required to consider the application of the petitioner on its own merits without being prejudiced by the facts that the offence as alleged is non-bailable. In similar circumstances, a Bench of this Court in Cr. Revision Nos. 543, 454 of 2006 in the case of Manish Giri vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (1) PLJR has discussed the scope under section 205 Cr.P.C. and noticing the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ram Harsh Das (supra) and various other judgments held out that power to refuse permission under section 205 Cr.P.C. should not be used as a substitute for ultimate punishment which could be awarded. The court decided the matter but also in the last paragraph issued direction to the Registrar to circulate the copy of the order for to all the Civil Courts in the State of Bihar for guidelines of Judicial Officers in future.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment which was circulated to all the Civil Courts, the court below rejected the application of the petitioner filed to dispense with personal appearance vide order dated 9.12.2010 and even the revisional court in Cr. Revision No. 97 of 2011 has failed to exercise judicial discretion for the ends of justice and as such the petitioner was constraint to approach this Court by way of filing the instant application.
Casemine version:
Bad Behavior has blocked 959 access attempts in the last 7 days.
