Justice Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji fined 25K INR to be paid to the Respondent, due to the delay tactics employed by Petitioner/her Advocate in dragging on the case…
Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision
CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020
Delhi High Court held this interesting point on discharge an accused.
71. In view of above facts discussed, the settled law is that if the prosecution witnesses presumed to be true, without any cross examination, still conviction cannot be awarded to the accused, then deserves for discharge, as the case in hand is.
Citations :
Other Sources :
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here.
Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020
In this case, Single Judge discussed the admissibility of evidence in cases filed in Family Courts u/s 14 and also dispelled the false notion that if a spouse obtains an evidence illegally (by installing a CCTV in this case), such act would not be violative of the other spouse’s right to privacy. And also nothing in Constitution of India prohibits such evidence.
From Para 37,
37. While consistency in law is of utmost importance and law must get its full play regardless of the fact situation, this court must record the unease it feels with regard to a certain aspect that has arisen in this matter. Marriage is a relationship to which sanctity is still attached in our society. Merely because rules of evidence favour a liberal approach for admitting evidence in court in aid of dispensation of justice, this should not be taken as approval for everyone to adopt any illegal means to collect evidence, especially in relationships of confidence such as marriage. If the right to adduce evidence collected by surreptitious means in a marital or family relationship is available without any qualification or consequences, it could potentially create havoc in people’s personal and family lives and thereby in the society at large. For instance, if a spouse has the carte blanche to install a recording device in a bedroom or other private space or to adopt any means whatsoever to collect evidence against the partner, even if in circumstances of matrimonial discord, it would be difficult to foresee the length to which a spouse may go in doing so ; and such possibility would itself spell the end of the marital relationship. It is not uncommon for spouses to continue living together, even in matrimonial strife, for years on-end. So, while law must trump sentiment, a salutary rule of evidence or a beneficent statutory provision, must not be taken as a license for illegal collection of evidence.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170404652/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5efb8cc29fca196e33048e01
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deepti-kapur-versus-kunal-julka
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/07/01/del-hc-if-right-to-adduce-evidence-collected-by-surreptitious-means-in-a-marital-or-family-relationship-is-available-without-any-consequences-it-could-potentially-create-havoc-in-peoples-p/
Note: The nut case went to Supreme Court and the SC kicked out the SLP.
Index of Divorce judgments is here.
Ashok Roopchand Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 04 Mar 2020
Another good judgment based on landmark rulings from DB of Bombay High Court as well as Apex Court, on renewal of a Passport for full term of 10 years.
6. In view of the directions given by this Court in the said judgment, therefore, the Respondents were duty bound to follow the said directions and ought to have renewed thepassport for a period of ten years. It has to be borne in mind that whenever a criminal complaint is pending against an applicant, who wishes to travel abroad, the Magistrate alone has a jurisdiction to impose conditions regarding his right to travel abroad. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the Applicant should not be permitted to travel abroad, he can reject his application. However, when an application is made forrenewal of passport, the Passport Authorities have to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It appears that the Central Government has issued a Notification by exercising a power vested in them under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and in the said Notification, it has been mentioned that the passport can be renewed for a period of one year. There being an ambiguity under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Notification issued by the Passport Authorities, this Court was pleased to clarify the said ambiguity in the case of Narendra Ambwani (supra). The Passport Authorities do not have the right to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad or not and that right is vested in the Magistrate, who can impose condition if an application is made, seeking permission to travel abroad. The Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : 1978 SCR (2) 621)] has held that the right to travel for the purpose of business and service is a part of a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions, which are imposed by the Act and by the Court. In the present case, the Applicant on account of his service as a Flight Person has to travel abroad continuously and there is no possibility of absconding since he has to return back along with the fight. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we direct the Passport Authorities to renew the passport for a period of 10 years. It is clarified that, however, the Applicant will have to apply to the Magistrate seeking permission to travel abroad. If such an application is made, the Magistrate may impose such conditions as deem ft and proper.”
Kantamneni Ravi Shankar Vs State of AP
Kantamneni Ravi Shankar, MD of TeluguOne media organization was booked in a baseless crime by AP CID and then Single-judge bench sufficiently gave lecture to the Police on Duties of Police.
4 months earlier, Anticipatory Bail was also granted to this Petitioner:
The genesis of this and such nonsensical false criminal cases is this GO:
A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.
Robin Sharma Vs State of Punjab on 11 August 2020
Single-Judge bench held the importance of fair investigation by Investigating officer. And more importantly, advised as following, wrt sec 166A(b), which I elaborated here:
The complainant/victim of a crime may accordingly apply to the Judicial Magistrate, empowered to take cognizance of the offences in question on police report, for monitoring of investigation who can issue appropriate directions for expeditious completion of investigation. The complainant/ victim of a crime may also file complaint under section 166A (b) of the IPC against the Investigating Officer for knowingly disobeying, any direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation. In view of explanation to Section 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C. no sanction is required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under Section 166 A of the IPC. The complainant/victim of a crime may alternatively file petition in the High Court for transfer of investigation to an independent agency such as CBI etc.. However, it may be observed here that in substantial number of such cases the complainant/victim of a crime is not able to pursue these remedies due to lack of awareness and legal aid at the initial stages.
MS Sujan Multiports Ltd Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 12 March 2019
This is the wonderful judgment from Punjab and Haryana High Court. Very good for lawyers and law students alike.
This is what is mentioned by Hon’ble Judge on first page itself. This is just beginning.
The language of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though is as simple as it could have been, yet seems to have fallen pray to the fear of ‘unknown’ in its applied interpretations. That ‘unknown’ is the fear arising out of a demon of the Indian system of administration of criminal justice, called the ‘FIR’. This fear is so pervasive that it starts showing its effect even before the ‘FIR’ comes into being, and continues to haunt a person even after he is acquitted of the charge leveled in ‘FIR’.
Entire Complaint filing and cognizance taking upon such complaint is detailed elaborately further.
Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited on 25 September 2015
This is a good judgment from Madras High Court which held that, a Magistrate can dispense with appearance of accused in a criminal case on first appearance itself, if accused is represented by an Advocate and supported by reasonable excuse.
Beautiful articulation of fact situation on the ground
From Para 15,
15. However, this Court is much concerned if the counsel who is permitted to represent the petitioners/accused is absent on the ground of boycott. In such circumstances, the Court below is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Persons belonging to the legal profession are concededly the elite of the society. They have always been in the vanguard of progress and development of not only law but the polity as a whole. Citizenry looks at them with hope and expectations for traversing on the new paths and virgin fields to be marched on by the society. The profession by and large, till date has undoubtedly performed its duties and obligations and has never hesitated to shoulder its responsibilities in larger interests of mankind. The lawyers, who have been acknowledged as being sober, task-oriented, professionally-responsible stratum of the population, are further obliged to utilise their skills for socio-political modernisation of the country. The lawyers are a force for the preservance and strengthening of constitutional government as they are guardians of the modern legal system. But now-a-days, unfortunately, strikes, boycott calls and even unruly are becoming a frequent spectacles and boycotting the Courts by Advocates has come a regular feature in this state and almost throughout a year, one section or the other of the members of the Bar abstain from Courts and thereby making this Chartered High Court into shattered position. No Advocate has a right to abstain from Court without first returning the briefs to his clients and refunding the fees received from them. It is well known that several clients are paying through their nose by borrowing heavily to their advocates and it is a matter of life and death for them. Advocates who are boycotting the Courts for one cause of so, should not ignore the fact that there have been several causes before the Courts pending for disposal and their act of boycotting would lead to a travesty of justice and destroy the basic democracy, which would tantamount to failure of administration of justice. Failure of a lawyer to attend to his case in Court would not only be breach of contract and breach of trust, but also professional misconduct.
In such circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to make the following:
i) No advocate has right to stall the court proceedings on the ground that advocates have decided to strike or to boycott the courts or even boycott any particular court. With the strike by the lawyers, the process of court intended to secure justice is obstructed which is unwarranted under the provisions of the Advocates Act.
ii) It is always open to the litigants to claim damages and also to move the Consumer forum for appropriate compensation and for damages that had caused to them by theirs Advocates by not representing the matters in Courts;
ii) No Advocate shall be permitted to represent the matter without robes (dress-code) on boycott day;
iii) The Courts below shall record the non-apperance of the Advocates due to boycott in the listed case proceedings and proceed with the matters on merits;
iv) After recording such non-apperance of the Advocates, the Courts below shall report the same to the Bar Council of India for appropriate action and it would facilitate the litigants to pursue the matter with the Bar Council of India.
The Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to all the subordinate Courts dealing with civil and criminal matters.
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117608503/
Lanka Venkata Subrahmanyam Vs State of Telangana on 4 January 2018
Baseless case against Secretary to Government LV Subrahmanyam was quashed by AP High Court.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
Amarjit Kaur and Ors Vs Jaswinder Kaur and Ors on 15 May 2020
Taking cue from Geeta Mehrotra judgment here, Punjab High Court has quashed proceedings on relatives living far away in Canada taking a ground that no specific allegation are in the complaint.
Citations: [2]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12422589/
