Wonderful case of mischief done by Mother-out-law on a Son-in-law and how royally, her cover is blown.
Read it for it’s entertainment value.
Nagaraj Kumar H.K. Vs Smt. Gangadevamma on 1 June, 2018 - OrderWonderful case of mischief done by Mother-out-law on a Son-in-law and how royally, her cover is blown.
Read it for it’s entertainment value.
Nagaraj Kumar H.K. Vs Smt. Gangadevamma on 1 June, 2018 - OrderThis is a Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Permanent alimony given to Knife is cancelled as the perjury case against her was proved true.
Arun Kashinath Deshpande Vs Smt.Inumati Ramchandra Deo on 8 April, 2010
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Lot of Perjury Judgments are cited in this Delhi High Court Order.
Judgment 2 - HS Bedi vs National Highway Authority Of India on 14 May, 2015
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
The Supreme Court bench has delivered this landmark judgment calling out the cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya’ (truth) and `Ahimsa’ (non-violence) in Indian Society and exclaimed that,
Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009“In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.“
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198000498/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aed8e4b0149711414dd7
Citations: [2010 SCC CRI 1 324], [2010 SCC 2 114], [2009 SCALE 14 473], [2010 AIC 85 13], [2010 AIR SC SUPP 116], [2010 AIR SC 0 50], [2010 SCJ 1 863], [2009 JT 15 201], [2009 SLT 9 167], [2009 AIOL 1294], [2009 SUPREME 8 485], [2010 ALL LJ 1 536], [2010 MADLJ 2 483], [2010 AIR SCW 50]
Index of perjury case laws here.
This is a wonderful judgment from Justice J R Midha explaining in detail and elaborate what is an offence under Section 209 IPC and how to get the offender punished.
HS Bedi Vs National Highway Authority Of India on 22 January, 2016Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the knife filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and approached the Hon’ble court with unclean hands and committed fraud upon the Hon’ble.
Key (Tricky) Highlight around applicability of CrPC but not Sec 468 CrPC:
Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 201124. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 508.
Citations : [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 90], [2012 CRLJ SC 309], [2012 ALLMR CRI SC 369], [2011 CRIMES SC 4 51], [2011 SUPREME 6 181], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 129], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 1], [2011 SCC 12 588], [2011 SLT 6 434], [2011 AIOL 597], [2011 SCALE 9 295], [2011 JT 11 177], [2012 SCC CRI 2 614], [2011 ACR SC 3 3544], [2011 DMC SC 3 7], [2011 KCCR 4 3283], [2011 KLJ 3 40], [2011 KLT SN 4 69], [2011 NCC 2 544], [2011 SCR 10 557], [2011 UC 3 1758], [2012 SCC CIV 2 742]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1337239/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af03e4b014971141557d
Another previous judgment cited in this judgment is available here.
Index DV case laws is here.
Fraud on Hon’ble Court is always viewed seriously.
Meghmala & Ors vs G.Narasimha Reddy & Ors on 16 August, 2010
This is a Quash Judgment from Hon’ble AP high Court on grounds such as
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159121592/
Citation:
Is it a crime to lie under oath in India?
Yes.
Any person can ‘seek the Public Servant to initiate Perjury Proceedings’
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. contains the law procedure that has to be followed in Perjury proceedings.
Section 195 of Cr.P.C contains offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
Court can initiate Perjury Proceedings, Suo moto
Section 344 of Cr.P.C contains the law procedure that the Court can invoke against any witness appearing in such proceeding who had knowingly or willfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding.
These are 30+ various provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that cater to definition and punishment for various perjuries of opposite parties and other public servants.
As per CrPC sec 195(1)(a), the following is the list of 18 provisions of contempt to the lawful authority of public servants. Key here is, a complaint can only be filed by such public servant or by a superior officer of such public servant. Generally Police folks and their bosses, but there is not much history of police filing complaints to Court for the following offences.
IPC 172: Absconding to avoid service of summons or other proceeding
IPC 173: Preventing service of summons or other proceeding, or preventing publication thereof
IPC 174: Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant
IPC 174A: Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974
IPC 175: Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it
IPC 176: Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give it
IPC 177: Furnishing false information
IPC 178: Refusing oath or affirmation when duly required by public servant to make it
IPC 179: Refusing to answer public servant authorised to question
IPC 180: Refusing to sign statement
IPC 181: False statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or person authorised to administer an oath or affirmation
IPC 182: False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person
IPC 183: Resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant
IPC 184: Obstructing sale of property offered for sale by authority of public servant
IPC 185: Illegal purchase or bid for property offered for sale by authority of public servant
IPC 186: Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions
IPC 187: Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance
IPC 188: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant
For these 18 offences, an application u/s 340 CrPC can not be filed. Also no private complaint under 190/200 CrPC is maintainable by any other person, but representations may be made to the SHO of the Police Station concerned or to the Office of SP/CP.
As per CrPC sec 195(1)(b), the following is the list of 16 provisions of contempt to the lawful authority of Courts. Key here is, a complaint can only be filed by such Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or by a superior Court of such Court. Generally Trial Courts and their Appellate Courts. Again no private complaint under 190/200 CrPC is maintainable. For these 16 offences, an application u/s 340 CrPC can be filed; even by a stranger to the case.
IPC 193: Punishment for offenses u/s 191 & 192 IPC
IPC 194: Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence
IPC 195: Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment
IPC 195A: Threatening any person to give false evidence
IPC 196: Using evidence known to be false
IPC 199: False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence
IPC 200: Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false
IPC 205: False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution
IPC 206: Fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution
IPC 207: Fraudulent claim to property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution
IPC 208: Fraudulently suffering decree for sum not due
IPC 209: Dishonestly making false claim in Court
IPC 210: Fraudulently obtaining decree for sum not due
IPC 211: False charge of offence made with intent to injure
IPC 228: Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceeding
Terms used in judgments are misrepresentation, unclean hands, fraud on court, misuse of administration of justice etc if you are searching for judgments online.
Here are the judgments for your usage in your cases under above IPC sections.
IMP NOTE: Apart from the listed (and implied) sections, there are many more provisions of IPC which can be filed as a direct complaint as per 154 CrPC, 155 CrPC or 190/200 CrPC. The said procedure under sec CrPC 340 does not apply to those sections. Like IPC 218 etc.
Additionally, such contemnors are liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well, at the State High Court.
Supreme Court Judgment
Allahabad High Court Judgment
Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment
Bombay High Court Judgment
Calcutta High Court Judgment
Delhi High Court Judgment
Gujarat High Court Judgment
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladhak High Court Judgment
Karnataka High Court Judgment
Karnataka High Court Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court Judgment
Madras High Court Judgment
Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment
High Court for the State of Telangana Judgment
Uttarakhand High Court Judgment
MASTER SITEMAP here.
This is a Judgment of District Judge of Rohini Court Delhi ordering no maintenance to a wife who is a qualified engineer and that she also joined the job after her marriage. Moreover, she did not disclose same in her application
Neeraj Aggarwal Vs Veeka Aggarwal on September 19, 2007Those seeking justice and equity from the Court must come to the court with clean hands. It seems that for obvious reasons and to extract money the applicant/ wife has not disclosed her true qualifications in the Court. The applicant/ wife is an engineer graduate and, therefore, can very well maintain herself and there is no need for her to depend upon the mercy of her parents or on the non-applicant/ husband. The purpose of Section 24 of H.M. Act is not to extract money from the other party and the court should not be a forum to extract the money or to blackmail the other party.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link:
Bad Behavior has blocked 898 access attempts in the last 7 days.