A judgment from a single judge bench granting speedy trial…
Citations :
Other Sources :
Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision
Juhi Chawla and Ors Vs Science and Engineering Research Board and Ors on 04 Jun 2021
Justice J R Midha of Delhi High Court dustbinned the frivolous case of Juhi Chawla and her friends alleging that 5G technology must not be allowed in India unless it is declared as “safe“; And levied a cost of Rs.20,00,000/- to be paid along with the Court fee that did not file at the Registry!!!
Akshay Vinod Kulkarni Vs Chief Passport Officer and Anr on 03 May 2021
Single judge bench of Delhi High Court held that without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner, the Passport Office cannot suspend, impound a passport.
From Paras 11, 12 and 13,
11. In the opinion of this court, the shocking part of the present case is that, despite long drawn correspondence the Respondents have not served the passport suspension order or the denial order to the Petitioner. He was shuttled between the RPO-Kozhikode who informed him that it was the Indian Mission in Houston which revoked his passport. It is not even the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner was heard. The passport of the petitioner has been suspended on the basis of a complaint by the wife due to matrimonial disputes for more than two and half years. The correspondence on record reveals that the Petitioner has repeatedly approached various authorities seeking revival of his passport as also for a copy of the denial order, but in vain. Even before this court the Respondents have not filed any affidavit or document on record till date, despite having more than five months to do so. The Indian Mission or the other authorities have not filed a single document to show whether it is a case of revocation of passport or suspension of passport and if so on what grounds was the action taken. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Petitioner has been unable to travel to India. It is the case of the Petitioner that his old mother, who is a widow, lives alone in Bangalore and that he wishes to travel both in the U.S.A. and in India, in relation to his job assignments. It is clear that the Petitioner is suffering immensely both personally and professionally due to the suspension/revocation of his passport. The Petitioner’s appeal has also now been dismissed, without the said orders being made available to him. The submission is that even if the suspension order is stayed, the passport does not come back into operation.
12. In the order in appeal dated 8th May, 2020, which is under challenge in the present petition, the Appellate Forum proceeds on the basis that since the email dated 5th November, 2018 was sent to the Petitioner, it is presumed that the Petitioner was aware of the suspension of his passport. Such a conclusion cannot be arrived at unless and until, the Respondent establishes on record that proper notice was issued and a reply was called for and the Petitioner did not respond to the same.
13. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents now submits that due to the pandemic, the file of this case is also not available and so he could not place any documents on record.
14. The Petitioner cannot be made to live without a passport indefinitely. This Court has given adequate time to the Respondents to file an affidavit/documents on record, however, not a single shred of paper has been placed on record. On merits, whether the suspension/revocation was justified or not would be the subject matter of final adjudication. However, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer further especially due to the pandemic that is currently raging which may require him to travel to India to meet his mother who is in India, owing to her age etc.
Titash Banik Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 23 Dec 2016
Relying on landmark decision of a Division bench of the Apex Court here, High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the accused must be provided with a certified copy of the FIR in which the accused was accused.
Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE CHH 1623]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/149118573/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58a563b84a93266eac2e0258
Police authorities cannot deny certified copy of FIR, except in some sensitive cases
Pritilata Majumder Vs Krishnapada Majumder on 23 Apr 2021
Based on Apex Court decision here, Single Judge of High Court of Tripura held that the evidence of a dumb witness is a competent witness as per section 119 of Evidence Act.
[14] Evidently the petitioner was produced in court and an expert trained in sign language was also engaged by the court to interpret her evidence. As observed by the court, since the petitioner did not understand sign language she could not communicate her evidence to the interpreter and as a result the interpreter could not interpret her evidence to court. However, the petitioner was able to communicate to the court by her signs and gestures that everything of her life was known to her mother.
[15] In this emerged situation, mother [PW-2] of the petitioner is the best witness on her side. She had intimate knowledge of the signs and gestures and meaning of all expressions of her daughter who was brought up by her since her birth. None on earth other than her could better understand her daughter. The mother categorically stated at the trial that marriage of her daughter with the respondent was solemnized in a temple at Kumarghat and after marriage a daughter was born to her and thereafter the respondent left the area. Her evidence was supported by PW-3, a 70 years old man, unrelated to the petitioner who had no reason to tell lie. Moreover, the husband managed to escape. He never appeared either at the trial court or before this Court to discharge his burden. It was not unknown to him that legal proceedings were initiated by his wife against him because he was arrested in one of the cases instituted by his petitioner wife.
[16] A bare perusal of section 119 of the Evidence Act would show that a deaf and dumb witness who is unable to speak may give his evidence in any other manner intelligible to the court. It may be by writing or by signs in open court. It is evident that the mother [PW-2] and her petitioner daughter [PW-1] came to the court on the same day for giving deposition in the case. It also appears from the record that the petitioner was a literate person. She was able to read and write. Therefore, in case of any doubt, the court could have asked her to communicate her words in writing. The court could have also cleared its doubts from the mother of the petitioner by putting the questions to her in exercise of its power under section 165 of the Evidence Act. Without taking recourse to such means, the Family Court rejected the petition declining to grant maintenance allowance to the petitioner and her daughter which is unacceptable.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50658253/
Dilranjan Bhatt Vs State of Maharashtra on 20 Sep 2019
Based on this landmark decision of Apex Court, Bombay High Court held that whatever be the final report of the police after their investigation finishes, has to be passed onto the informant.
Citation :
Other Source :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/106594898/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d953443714d586ef563ac9b/
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Dilranjan-Bhatt-Versus-The-State-of-Maharashtra-2019-09-20
https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=319102340200&Title=DILRANJAN-BHATT-Vs.-STATE-OF-MAHARASHTRA
Deepak Mahto @ Deepak Kumar Vs State of Bihar on 12 Apr 2021
Patna High Court held that ‘statements under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for corroboration and contradictions only‘.
From Paras 8 and 9,
8. The aforesaid statement of the prosecutrix does not disclose as to what offence was committed against her.
Evidence given in a Court on oath coupled with opportunity of cross-examination to the accused has great sanctity and that is why the same is called substantive evidence. It is well settled by a catena of judicial pronouncements that statements under Section 154 Cr.P.C. or under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for corroboration and contradictions only.9. In R. Shaji v. State of Kerala reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266, the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that a proposition to the effect that if statement of a witness is recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., his evidence in Court should be discarded, is not at all warranted. As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or under Section 161 Cr.P.C., such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016
Taking input from Kerala HC judgment here, Gujarat High Court held that, any agreement which has terms against to Public Policy, is void and not enforceable in law. Such agreements which prohibit right of maintenance are also void.
From Para 9,
9 In any case, all such issues are now well settled by few decisions of different Courts
[1] Rajesh R Nair v. Meera Babu reported in 2013 Cri. L.J. 3153, wherein Division Bench of Kerala High Court has held that waiver of right to maintenance by an agreement is not permissible because such agreement would be void agreement as against public policy. It would amount to ousting of jurisdiction of Magistrate and Family Court to entertain maintenance claim which cannot be permitted by law. Therefore, such agreement being void would be unenforceable and hence claim for maintenance cannot be rejected on the basis of such agreement of waiver of right to maintenance.
[2] In Rishikesh Singh alias T.R. Singh v. Kiran Gautam reported in 2015 Cri.L.J. 126, Chhattisgarh High Court has confirmed that decree of divorce obtained by mutual consent would be no ground to deny maintenance until wife has not remarried after divorce. It is further held that even if wife is junior advocate, it cannot be held that she is able to maintain herself and, therefore, she would be entitled for the maintenance.
[3] Smt. Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta reported in [1995] 5 SCC 299, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also taken the same view that wife, who obtains divorce by mutual consent cannot be denied maintenance by virtue of section 125[4] and thereby restored the order of the Sessions Court, which has concluded that wife was entitled to maintenance notwithstanding divorce by mutual consent and remanded the matter to the trial Court for determining quantum of maintenance. Thereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court which held that wife is not entitled to maintenance once she has divorced her marriage by mutual consent. It would be appropriate to recollect here that for coming to such conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied upon as many as three other decisions of different High Courts, which are quoted in such reported case and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, as on date, there are at least as many as five judgments including judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which confirm that a wife who obtains divorce by mutual consent cannot be denied maintenance by virtue of section 125 [4] of the Cr. P.C.
Citations : [2016 SCC ONLINE GUJ 9136], [2017 AIC 172 524]
Other Sources:
https://mynation.net/docs/1095-2011/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e33e4a93261a1a744803
Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh on 30 Jul 2020
Long story short, AP HC says, if the Police do not register an FIR if information about a cognizable offence is reported, the remedies are as follows:
The remedies are under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.
Citations :
Other Sources :
A 2-page judgment here which cites this judgment can also be used for same purpose. Saves 24 pages !!!
Lingam Seetharammayya and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 Mar 2021
Single-judge bench of AP HC held that, one cannot directly approach the High Court u/Article 226 of Constitution of India, if the Police do not register an FIR if information about a cognizable offence is reported relying on the case law from AP HC here.
The remedies are under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.
