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
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/
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
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.
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
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 !!!
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.
Disagreeing with a catena of judgements here, here, here, here, Single-bench of High Court of Meghalaya relied upon this landmark decision from Supreme Court here and held that a false DV case can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC.
From Paras 33, 34 and 33,
33. The argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in the opinion of this Court are valid as regard the nature and relief contemplated under the DV Act 2005, particularly those seen in Sections 18 to 22 which are civil in nature and can be sought for before any civil court, family court or a criminal court as provided under Section 26 of the said DV Act. However, the learned counsel has failed to notice that in Section 26 of the DV Act, the aggrieved person apart from a civil court or a family court, can seek the reliefs stated above even from a criminal court and in doing so, the aggrieved person would subject herself to the jurisdiction of a criminal court following the procedure of the Criminal Procedure Code.
34. In fact, Section 28 of the DV Act 2005 specifically provides that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 as well as Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though liberty was also given to the court to lay down its own procedure.
35. The applicability of the said provision of Section 28 of the said DV Act in criminal proceedings was emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) at paragraphs 138 and 139 where it has restated that the procedure to be followed shall be under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
From Paras 38, 39
38. It is also a fact that Section 482 Cr.P.C provides for inherent power on the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code and as stated above, proceedings under the DV Act being governed by the procedure under the Cr.P.C, therefore the logical conclusion would be that an application under Section 482 is maintainable qua order passed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the DV Act.
39. With due respect, the decisions of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court cited above and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No 2, as far as the procedural aspects under the DV Act is concerned, would not stand the test in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra).
AP High Court only quashed 498A IPC but not 494 IPC.
Citation : [2010 ALT CRI 2 56], [2010 CRI LJ 2523], [2010 SCC ONLINE AP 148], [2010 ALD CRI 1 562]
Other Sources :
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48d37607dba348fff1e09
https://www.legitquest.com/case/a-subash-babu-v-state-of-ap-rep-by-public-prosecutor-another/13654
This judgment was set aside by Supreme Court here.
Relying on Chanmuniya case, Single-judge bench of AP High Court held that, in case of nullity of marriage under Section 11 or 12 of HMA, 125 CrPC cannot be invoked by knife.
Citations : [2020 ALT CRI 2 227], [2020 ALT 4 329]
Other Sources:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f4398cd4653d009c1ff7665
https://www.legitquest.com/case/palla-shanthi-kiran-v-the-state-of-ap-and-ors/1C400E
The Lower Family Court dismissal order is here:
Bad Behavior has blocked 346 access attempts in the last 7 days.
