Laishram Premila Devi and Ors Vs State and Ors on 11 Mar 2021

Posted on March 11 by ShadesOfKnife

Single judge bench levied Rs.30,000/- cost for wasting Police’s and Court’s time in false and frivolous cases of Sexual harassment.

From Paras 7, 8 and 9,

7. Unfortunately, it is now becoming a trend to register FIRs alleging offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D IPC either to force a party from withdrawing a complaint instituted against them or to arm twist a party. Offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D IPC are serious offences. Such allegations have the effect of tarnishing the image of the person against whom such allegations are made. Allegations regarding these offences cannot be made at a drop of a hat. This practice is an abuse of the process of law. The instant case is a classic example as to how frivolous allegations of Section 354 and 354A have been levelled by the parties against each other. A small fight regarding parking has been escalated by levelling allegation of outraging modesty of women. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that the police force is very limited. Police personnel have to spend time in investigating frivolous cases. They have to attend court proceedings, prepare Status Report etc. The result is that investigation in serious offences gets compromised and accused escape because of shoddy investigation. Time has come to initiate action against persons who file frivolous complaints under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 354D IPC etc. only for ulterior purpose. Some of the petitioners in these instant petitions are students who should understand not to take courts and the police for granted and assume that anything and everything can be settled and they can get away by filing false cases.
8. In view of the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose will be served in prosecuting with the present proceedings. Resultantly, the FIR No.238/2017 and FIR No.239/2017 dated 12.05.2017, under Sections 509, 506, 323, 341, 354, 354A and 34 IPC registered at Police Vasant Kunj(North), New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed. The parties shall remain bound by the mutual settlement and the undertaking given to the Court.
9. Since the Police has had to spend valuable time in investigating the offence and considerable time has been spent by the Court in the criminal proceedings initiated by the parties, this Court is inclined to impose cost on the petitioners with a warning not to file false and frivolous cases. The petitioners in CRL.M.C. 533/2021 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with ‘DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund’ within three weeks from today and the petitioners in CRL.M.C.534/2021 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with ‘DHCBA Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund’ within three weeks from today.

Laishram Premila Devi and Ors Vs State and Ors on 11 Mar 2021

Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash and Ors on 10 Sep 2004

Posted on March 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A landmark judgment from a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court, categorically declares as follows:

From Para 17,

17. It is clear from the words emphasised hereinabove in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T.T Antony v. State of Kerala has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case from the purview of the Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under section 162 of the code. This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply to counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident.

From Para 23,

23. Be that as it may, if the law laid down by this Court in T.T Antony case is to be accepted as holding that a second complaint in regard to the same incident filed as a counter-complaint is prohibited under the Code then, in our opinion, such conclusion would lead to serious consequences. This will be clear from the hypothetical example given hereinbelow i.e if in regard to a crime committed by the real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real accused to book. This cannot be the purport of the Code.

Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash and Ors on 10 Sep 2004

Citations : [2004 AIR SC 4320], [2004 ALD CRI 2 906], [2004 CRI LJ 4219], [2004 JCR SC 4 158], [2004 JT SC 7 488], [2004 KLT SC 3 444], [2005 OLR SC 1 43], [2004 PLJR 4 157], [2004 SCALE 7 563], [2004 CRLJ 0 4219], [2004 SCC 13 2922004 ACR 3 2450], [2005 SCC CR 0 211], [2004 SCC 1 292], [2004 JT 7 4881], [2005 JIC 1 1092005 ACC 51 673], [2004 AIR SC 3240], [2004 AIR SC 0 4320], [2004 RCR CRIMINAL 4 294], [2004 SCC 22 292], [2004 SCC 6 528], [2004 AIR SC 5017], [2005 BOMCR CRI SC 1 199], [2004 CRIMES SC 4 20], [2005 SCC CRI 211], [2004 SUPREME 6 528], [2004 ALLLJ 3436], [2004 CRLJ SC 4219], [2004 RCR CRL 4 2942004 ALL LJ 3436], [2004 CRILJ 42192004 JT 7 488], [2004 AIR SCW 5017], [2004 AIR SCW 0 4320]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1054183/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adefe4b0149711412948

Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Mar 2021

Posted on March 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that a second complaint/FIR against same accused person by same complaint is impermissible in law and is also violative of Article 21 of Constitution.

It is the aforementioned part of the holding in Upkar Singh that bears directly and strongly upon the present case. This Court in Upkar Singh has clearly stated that any further complaint by the same complainant against the same accused, after the case has already been registered, will be deemed to be an improvement from the original complaint. Though Upkar Singh was rendered in the context of a case involving cognizable offences, the same principle would also apply where a person gives information of a non-cognizable offence and subsequently lodges a private complaint with respect to the same offence against the same accused person. Even in a non-cognizable case, the police officer after the order of the Magistrate, is empowered to investigate the offence in the same manner as a cognizable case, except the power to arrest without a warrant. Therefore, the complainant cannot subject the accused to a double whammy of investigation by the police and inquiry before the Magistrate.

Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Mar 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019

Posted on March 9 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice B. Siva Sankar Rao trashed the falsely-laid proceedings of Dowry and 498A IPC against the family members as there were no specific allegations made up on them and no supporting evidence collected by the Police.

6. There is no record even shown from the police charge sheet by collecting from father of de facto complainant as to any so called additional amount of Rs.4,30,000/- given out of his retirement benefits or 15 tulas of gold. It is crucial if at all to believe as to what were the retirement benefits he received and when from his account he parted with. There is no date or time even mentioned either in the report or from the police investigation to believe, leave about the fact that the so-called marriage performed, from the police investigation out of love affair between A-1 and de facto complainant against the will of the parents of the de facto complainant and the parents of A-1, who are A-2 & A-3 from the beginning agreed for the love marriage with no objection. Once such is the case, even the stray allegation of the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 used to abuse her as not of their caste or religion and if they marry another girl, they could get more dowry itself is unbelievable, for the very marriage is love marriage. Even to say that there was any instigation to A-1 by A-2 to A-4 for additional dowry when it is a love marriage and no dowry shown paid originally and as discussed supra of no any payment of dowry by father of de facto complainant after his retirement from his benefits alleged, the question of any payment of additional dowry is unbelievable. It clearly shows the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 are roped without any basis for reasons better known by the de facto complainant and the police investigation in this regard is also perfunctory and baseless and the legal position is very clear that unless from the specific allegations in the complaint against the other relatives of the husband, no cognizance can be taken against the family members, particularly from the tendency of making baseless allegations in roping them and even a stray sentence as suffered harassment in the hands of in-laws, etc., is not sufficient to sustain any such accusation to rope the other family members of the husband of the de facto complainant, so-called victim.

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019

Posted on December 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single Judge Bench of JUSTICE Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO, quashed the false 498A/DP Act complaint on Father in law and two sisters in law. Just one Paragraph !!!

From Para 6,

6. There is no record even shown from the police charge sheet by collecting from father of de facto complainant as to any so-called additional amount of Rs.4,30,000/- given out of his retirement benefits or 15 tulas of gold. It is crucial if at all to believe as to what were the retirement benefits he received and when from his account he parted with. There is no date or time even mentioned either in the report or from the police investigation to believe, leave about the fact that the so-called marriage performed, from the police investigation out of love affair between A-1 and de facto complainant against the will of the parents of the de facto complainant and the parents of A-1, who are A-2 & A-3 from the beginning agreed for the love marriage with no objection. Once such is the case, even the stray allegation of the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 used to abuse her as not of their caste or religion and if they marry another girl, they could get more dowry itself is unbelievable, for the very marriage is love marriage. Even to say that there was any instigation to A-1 by A-2 to A-4 for additional dowry when it is a love marriage and no dowry shown paid originally and as discussed supra of no any payment of dowry by father of de facto complainant after his retirement from his benefits alleged, the question of any payment of additional dowry is unbelievable. It clearly shows the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 are roped without any basis for reasons better known by the de facto complainant and the police investigation in this regard is also perfunctory and baseless and the legal position is very clear that unless from the specific allegations in the complaint against the other relatives of the husband, no cognizance can be taken against the family members, particularly from the tendency of making baseless allegations in roping them and even a stray sentence as suffered harassment in the hands of in-laws, etc., is not sufficient to sustain any such accusation to rope the other family members of the husband of the de facto complainant, so-called victim.

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

Index of Quash judgments here.

Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018

Posted on December 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court has set aside the dismissal of the discharge petition u/s 227 CrPC against the Petitioners, up on whom vague allegations were made which did not attract the offences alleged in Charge sheet.

From Para 7,

7. I have meticulously gone through the statement of C.W.1-Vedha, because, she has categorically stated about the accident taken place on 25.07.2015 and she actually saw on that day accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a tipper lorry and dashed the Nano car, wherein C.W.1 and her child and parents were there. Due to the said impact, her father and mother died on the spot. C.W.1 and her child sustained injuries. She has also categorically stated that when she questioned her husband as to why he has given complaint as if it is an accident, then, he threatened her with dire consequence of killing her and the child. But, there is no allegation against these petitioners explaining as to how the incident has happened right from the beginning. Except stating that when accused Nos.3 and 4 though informed about the birth of female child, they did not come and see the child because, it is a female child. She has only stated that there was a small quarrel taking place in the family and sometimes, accused Nos.3 and 4 were also telling her to listen to their words, C.W.1 taken advantage of these small incidents in the family to make allegations. Even it has not been stated as to in what manner those small incidents, projected to mentally and physically harass her. Except making a bald and trivial allegation that they were also ill-treating and harassing her, nothing has been given in the statement except stating that they were quarrelling for trivial issues. Therefore, on these factual aspects, she omnibusly states that accused Nos.3 and 4 were also ill-treating and harassing her.

And from Para 9,

9. Framing of charges against the accused persons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. One case cannot be compared with another at all. The nature of the allegations made, strength of those allegations and surrounding circumstances have to be looked into by the Court in each case. In this particular case, till the point of time the incident took place, it appears that no allegations have been made against accused Nos.3 and 4. Though there are certain allegations against accused No.1 i.e., the husband of C.W.1, there is no serious allegations against accused Nos.3 and 4. In the above facts and circumstances, particularly, looking to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed a serious error in ordering to frame charges against these petitioners for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It is apparently materials are lacking against these petitioners. Further, I am of the opinion that the allegations made are omnibus in nature and they are not sufficient to frame charges against accused Nos.3 and 4 even for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to be discharged.

Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121615977/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a621de44653d00b3602ce39

Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018

Posted on December 2, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Relatives not living in a shared household were implicated in a false DV case, so High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed the DV proceedings against the petitioners.

Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100106255/

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nafisa-Anjum-Versus-State-of-Chhattisgarh-Through-Officer-In-Charge-Police-Station-2018-09-26

http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=028102399000

Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016

Posted on November 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

All the members of the family accused of 498A IPC offence were discharged as there was no material to prosecute them.

Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016

There was once a time when copy of complaint in a 498A IPC case was not given to accused, to exercise FIR Quash etc. Had to file RTI application to Police CPIO !!!

CIC_SS_A_2011_002037_M_77848

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The 3-judge bench again reiterated the usage and importance of Sec 313 CrPC, in this case where the parties very well knew they cannot get married due to their different religions and their parents are opposed to their marriage as they insisted that the marriage happen in a Temple Vs a Church !!!

From Para 6,

9. It stands well settled that circumstances not put to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him, and must be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial, the importance of the questions put to an accused are basic to the principles of natural justice as it provides him the opportunity not only to furnish his defence, but also to explain the incriminating circumstances against him. A probable defence raised by an accused is sufficient to rebut the accusation without the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court, time and again, has emphasised the importance of putting all relevant questions to an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Posted on October 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Vagua allegations don’t take fake cases far. Bombay HS quashed the fake case of 498A IPC against the relatively.

From Para 14,

14. Nowadays, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations, against every member of the family of the husband, implicating everybody under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute an offence and meet the requirements of the law at least prima facie.

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations

Laishram Premila Devi and Ors Vs State and Ors on 11 Mar 2021

Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash and Ors on 10 Sep 2004

Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Mar 2021

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019

Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018

Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018

Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016

Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand on 28 Sep 2020

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020