This is such an atrocious case whereby the so-called mother flouts the orders passed by Canadian Courts regd Custody of a minor child and reaches India only to file a 498A IPC case. Crooks!
Vijaya Mahantesh Mulemane Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 03 Mar 2022The Earlier decision from Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench, where a parenting plan was devised by the judges.
Vijaya Mahantesh Mulemane Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 22 Nov 2020A single judge bench of AP High Court held that ‘The application in I.A.No.1734 of 2017 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not disposed of for the past more than one year.‘
Shaik Peeru Saheb Vs Vallamsetty Haranadha Babu on 08 Jun 2018Citations :
Other Sources :
A judgment from a single judge bench granting speedy trial…
Tiyyagura Subhakara Reddy Vs Bhimavarapu Krishna Reddy on 22 Jun 2017Citations :
Other Sources :
A very good judgment regarding PWDV Act 2005 (Act) and the procedure to be following, in detail. Snippets from the same follow along with the 14 directions issued for the Judicial Magistrate to be followed by them in disposing DV cases in Tamil Nadu.
UPDATE: This judgment is overruled by Supreme Court here.
From Paras 3 and 4,
3. Upon a close reading of the D.V Act, this Court found that the nature of rights that were protected and enforced under the Act were purely civil in nature. However, considering the forum which was dealing with such applications, and the procedure adopted, a criminal color has been unwittingly given to these proceedings. Like a chameleon changing its colour depending on the situation, the proceedings under the D.V Act were also camouflaged due to the nature of the forum provided under the Act.
4. On the flip side, this faulty understanding of the nature of the proceedings has also given rise to a tendency to misuse these proceedings as a weapon of harassment against parties who are unrelated to the proceedings by making them stand before a Magistrate like accused persons. It is mainly on account of this abuse of process that a deluge of petitions came to be filed for quashing the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. This sorry state of affairs was a clear clarion call that impelled this Court to undertake this exercise to bring the situation under control by laying down certain guidelines for the disposal of the applications under Section 12 of the D.V Act.
Proceedings and Offences under the Act
18. Before examining this issue, it is necessary to notice the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by the Magistrate under the D.V Act. The procedure to be followed by a Magistrate in dealing with an application for reliefs under Chapter IV is set out in Section 28 of the Act. A close reading of Section 28 would show that it draws a distinction between “proceedings” (Section 12, 18 to 23) and “offences” (Sections 31 & 33) and states that they will be governed by Cr.P.C. This general rule is subject to two exceptions. The first exception is contained in the opening words of Section 28(1) of the Act which begins with the expression “save as otherwise provided by this Act”, the effect of which is to exclude the application of the Code in areas where the procedure has been expressly set out in the D.V Act or the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “D.V Rules” or “the Rules”). The second exception is found in Section 28(2) of the Act which is in the nature of a non-obstante clause expressly authorizing the Court to deviate from the procedure set out in Section 28(1) and lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or a proceeding under Section 23(2) of the Act.
19. In the first instance, it is, therefore, necessary to examine the areas where the D.V. Act or the D.V. Rules have specifically set out the procedure thereby excluding the operation of Cr.P.C as contemplated under Section 28(1) of the Act. This takes us to the D.V Rules. At the outset, it may be noticed that a “complaint” as contemplated under the D.V. Act and the D.V Rules is not the same as a “complaint” under Cr.P.C. A complaint under Rule 2(b) of the D.V Rules is defined as an allegation made orally or in writing by any person to a Protection Officer. On the other hand, a complaint, under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. is any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person, whether known or unknown has committed an offence. However, the Magistrate dealing with an application under Section 12 of the Act is not called upon to take action for the commission of an offence. Hence, what is contemplated is not a Officer as contemplated under Rule 4(1) of the D.V Rules.
20. Rule 6(1) sets out that an application under Section 12 of the Act shall be as per Form II appended to the Act. Thus, an application under Section 12 not being a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C, the procedure for cognizance set out under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code followed by the procedure set out in Chapter XV of the Code for taking cognizance will have no application to a proceeding under the D.V. Act. To reiterate, Section 190(1)(a) of the Code and the procedure set out in the subsequent Chapter XV of the Code will apply only in cases of complaints, under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C, given to a Magistrate and not to an application under Section 12 of the Act.
21. Consequently, the stage for issuance of process contemplated under Section 204, Cr.P.C has no application to a proceeding under the D.V Act as the Magistrate, in an application under Section 12 of the D.V Act, is not taking cognizance of any offence, but is only dealing with an application for civil reliefs. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, the respondent before the Court in an application under Section 12 of the Act is not an accused. Hence, the requirement of framing a charge does not arise either. (See V. Palaniammal v. Thenmozhi (2010) 1 MWN Cri 217).24. A close reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that the procedure set out in the D.V Act and the Rules makes a conscious deviation from the traditional modes of a criminal court taking cognizance, issuing process and then trying the accused under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. save in the case of offences under Section 31 & 33 of the Act. Thus, the application of the Cr.P.C. to an application under Section 12 is residuary in nature by virtue of the mandate of Section 28(1) of the D.V Act.
So, 482 CrPC does not apply to a DV proceeding, which is civil in nature…
40. As the proceedings before a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Chapter IV is not a criminal proceeding before a Criminal Court, the next question is whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code would lie to quash an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. It is settled law that a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C would lie only against an order of a criminal court.
41. As pointed out by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajamanickam v State of Tamil Nadu, 2015 (3) MWN Cri 379, Section 482 Cr.P.C preserves only the inherent criminal jurisdiction of the High Court. Thus, a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C would be maintainable only if the order complained of is passed by a criminal Court or by a Court in exercise of powers under the Cr.P.C. Quashing an application under Section 12 of the D.V Act does not fall in either category, as what the Court is called upon to do at that stage is to interdict the exercise of civil jurisdiction by the Magistrate at the threshold. As indicated supra, since the Magistrate is exercising only a civil jurisdiction in granting reliefs under Chapter IV of the Act, it follows that a Magistrate is not a criminal court for the purposes of proceedings under Chapter IV of the Act. It follows that an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C does not lie to quash an application under Section 12 of the D.V Act.
So, no remedy then…? (IMHO, apart from Article 227, a petition under sec 151 C.P.C. should also be available to quash the DV proceeding, if it is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.)
42. This does not, however, mean that an aggrieved respondent is remediless. The Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Chapter IV of the D.V Act, is certainly a subordinate Court for the purposes of Article 227, and a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would still be available challenging the proceedings under Chapter IV of the D.V Act, in an appropriate case.
Class for the lower trial Courts…
51. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that in several cases, Magistrates continue to mechanically follow the drill of the procedure set out in Sections 190(1)(a), 200 to 204, Cr.P.C and issue summons as if the respondents before it are accused of offences. To compound the confusion, in most of these cases all and sundry are roped in as respondents before the Magistrate. These respondents, upon being summoned, file petitions under Section 205, Cr.P.C to dispense with their personal attendance and thereafter file petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C to obtain a stay of all further proceedings in the case, and in most cases their personal appearance before the Magistrate is also dispensed with, and the case is then thrown into the backburner. All of this, it appears, is on account a perceptible lack of clarity in the procedure followed by the Magistrates while deciding applications under the Act.
Directions follow:
52.While it is no doubt true that the Court of Magistrate is invested with a great deal of flexibility under Section 28(2) of the Act to devise its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 of the Act, the twin principles of consistency and clarity dictate that this Court must now lay down some broad guidelines, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution & in respect of Judicial Magistrates under Section 483 of the Cr.P.C, for the proper disposal of applications under Section 12 of the D.V Act. A corrective mechanism is available in the D.V Act itself for aggrieved parties to agitate their grievances and obtain redress.
The following directions are, therefore, issued:
i. An application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, is not a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the procedure set out in Section 190(1)(a) & 200 to 204, Cr.P.C as regards cases instituted on a complaint has no application to a proceeding under the D.V Act. The Magistrate cannot, therefore, treat an application under the D.V Act as though it is a complaint case under the Cr.P.C.
ii.An application under Section 12 of the Act shall be as set out in Form II of the D.V Rules, 2006, or as nearly as possible thereto. In case interim ex-parte orders are sought for by the aggrieved person under Section 23(2) of the Act, an affidavit, as contemplated under Form III, shall be sworn to.
iii. The Magistrate shall not issue a summon under Section 61, Cr.P.C to a respondent(s) in a proceeding under Chapter IV of the D.V Act. Instead, the Magistrate shall issue a notice for appearance which shall be as set out in Form VII appended to the D.V Rules, 2006. Service of such notice shallbe in the manner prescribed under Section 13 of the Act and Rule 12 (2) of the D.V Rules, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the petition and affidavit, if any.
iv. Personal appearance of the respondent(s) shall not be ordinarily insisted upon, if the parties are effectively represented through a counsel. Form VII of the D.V Rules, 2006, makes it clear that the parties can Magistrate either in person or through a duly authorized counsel. In all cases, the personal appearance of relatives and other third parties to the domestic relationship shall be insisted only upon compelling reasons being shown. (See Siladitya Basak v State of West Bengal (2009 SCC Online Cal 1903).
v. If the respondent(s) does not appear either in person or through a counsel in answer to a notice under Section 13, the Magistrate may proceed to determine the application ex-parte.
vi. It is not mandatory for the Magistrate to issue notices to all parties arrayed as respondents in an application under Section 12 of the Act. As pointed out by this Court in Vijaya Baskar (cited supra), there should be some application of mind on the part of the Magistrate in deciding the respondents upon whom notices should be issued. In all cases involving relatives and other third parties to the matrimonial relationship, the Magistrate must set out reasons that have impelled them to issue notice to such parties. To a large extent, this would curtail the pernicious practice of roping in all and sundry into the proceedings before the Magistrate.
vii. As there is no issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204, Cr.P.C in a proceeding under the D.V Act, the principle laid down in Adalat Prasad v Rooplal Jindal (2004 7 SCC 338) that a process, under Section 204, Cr.P.C, once issued cannot be reviewed or recalled, will not apply to a proceeding under the D.V Act. Consequently, it would be open to an aggrieved respondent(s) to approach the Magistrate and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues. Issues like the existence of a shared household/domestic relationship etc., which form the jurisdictional basis for entertaining an application under Section 12, can be determined as a preliminary issue, in appropriate cases. Any person aggrieved by such an order may also take recourse to an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V Act for effective redress (See V.K Vijayalekshmi Amma v Bindu. V, (2010) 87 AIC 367). This would stem the deluge of petitions challenging the maintainability of an application under Section 12 of the D.V Act, at the threshold before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
viii. Similarly, any party aggrieved may also take recourse to Section 25 which expressly authorises the Magistrate to alter, modify or revoke any order under the Act upon showing change of circumstances.
ix. In Kunapareddy (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of a Magistrate purportedly exercising powers under Order VI, Rule 17 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”), to permit the amendment of an application under Section 12 of the D.V Act. Taking a cue therefrom, it would be open to any of the respondent(s), at any stage of the proceeding, to apply to the Magistrate to have their names deleted from the array of respondents if they have been improperly joined as parties. For this purpose, the Magistrate can draw sustenance from the power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. A judicious use of this power would ensure that the proceedings under the D.V Act do not generate into a weapon of harassment and would prevent the process of Court from being abused by joining all and sundry as parties to the lis.
x. The Magistrates must take note that the practice of mechanically issuing notices to the respondents named in the application has been deprecated by this Court nearly a decade ago in Vijaya Baskar (cited supra). Precedents are meant to be followed and not forgotten, and the Magistrates would,
therefore, do well to examine the applications at the threshold and confine the inquiry only to those persons whose presence before it is proper and necessary for the grant of reliefs under Chapter IV of the D.V Act.
xi. In Satish Chandra Ahuja (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has pointed out the importance of the enabling provisions under Section 26 of the D.V Act to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, the reliefs under Chapter IV of the D.V can also be claimed in a pending proceeding before a civil, criminal or family court as a counter claim.
xii. While recording evidence, the Magistrate may resort to chief examination of the witnesses to be furnished by affidavit (See Lakshman v Sangeetha, 2009 3 MWN (Cri) 257. The Magistrate shall generally follow the procedure set out in Section 254, Cr.P.C while recording evidence.
xiii. Section 28(2) of the Act is an enabling provision permitting the Magistrate to deviate from the procedure prescribed under Section 28(1), if the facts and circumstances of the case warrants such a course, keeping in mind that in the realm of procedure, everything is taken to be permitted unless
prohibited (See Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v Muhammad Yar Khan, 1888 11 ILR All 267).
xiv. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may still be maintainable if it is shown that the proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is one of superintendence and is visitorial in nature and will not be exercised unless there exists a clear jurisdictional error and that manifest or substantial injustice would be caused if the power is not exercised in favour of the petitioner. (See Abdul Razak v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle (2010) 2 SCC 432, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society, (2019) 9 SCC 538.) In normal circumstances, the power under Article 227 will not be exercised, as a measure of self-imposed restriction, in view of the corrective mechanism available to the aggrieved parties before the Magistrate, and then by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Act.
Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr on 18 Jan 2021
Citations :
Other Sources :
Supreme Court granted interim bail to Arnab Goswami, after he suffered judicial custody for 7 days.
Here is the Order.
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020Here is the Judgment with reasons.
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 27 Nov 2020Index of Quash judgments here.
Awareness of law involved in the case laid against you is crucial to handle and take charge of your case yourself. The following are some of the general reliefs one can invoke in Andhra Pradesh for sure. They may apply to other states also. List of High Courts is here.
Note: If you need some reliefs from Police High-handedness, go here.
Always remember Article 21 of Constitution of India
Article 21 is what powers Fair treatment of accused during criminal trials. It provides for fair investigation, Fair trial and Fair Judgment. Any violation of Article 21 gives you liberty to invoke Article 226 at High Court and Article 32 at Supreme Court to seek Writ Reliefs. Case laws are available in chronological order here.
It reads as follows:
21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Engagement of Advocates
As per Section 32 of Advocates Act 1961, you can appear in your own case.
If a victim wants to engage a private advocate to prosecute their case, yes you can, but only to assist the PP. The sections to back this aspect are to read
Hope this helps clarify the legal position to those of us who filed/intend to file Criminal cases against OP. This is explained in this case law here. The case law is available on my site here.
Engagement of a third-party other than Advocates
As per again Section 32 of Advocates Act 1961, you can appear in some one else’s case, subject to certain conditions.
This is laid out by the Legendary Jurist Sri V.R. Krishna Iyer in this celebrated case law here.
Terminating the services of Advocates
You have complete freedom to terminate the services of your Advocate and engage another one. Just be cautiously about the local procedures which can differ from High Court to High Court. It means, in some High Courts, there is no need of any No-Objection-Certification (NOC) from your current Advocate before you engage another. Like in Karnataka. But not so in Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is unwritten rule to obtain NOC so as to avoid unpleasant situations/conversations/interactions between you and your advocates (or between the earlier and current Advocates). Nevertheless Supreme Court has laid down a landmark case law here. Use it judiciously. Also take a look at other similar case laws here.
First Appearance in Court
Once the case documents are sent to Court via a Charge sheet or Closure report as mandated u/s 173 CrPC, Court Filing Section staff gives is a case number and list it in the causelist (daily timetable of work) before a competent Magistrate/ Judge.
On your first appearance day in the Court, Court staff will ask questions to identify you and your purpose of attending the Court. Next question is if you have engaged an advocate or need time for this purpose. Finally, case will be adjourned to a future date and each accused person will be given a set of copy of the above case documents which were submitted into Court by Police as mandated u/s 207 CrPC.
If you do not want to appear even on first appearance for certain obvious and unavoidable reasons, take help from this case law here and here and make good use of CrPC 205.
Provision u/s 173 CrPC to demand documents from IO to be submitted to Court and to obtain a copy of prosecution documents
Section 173(7) reads as follows:
(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).
How to use it:
If you are good terms with IO, then he/she may find it convenient to furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents. Be courteous to IO to make use of this.
Note: Otherwise, as mentioned above, Court will anyways, provide a copy of the entire bunch of prosecution documents to each accused on first appearance.
Section 173(6) reads as follows:
(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
How to use it:
If you have submitted any documents/made a statement that IO records during inquiry (supposedly u/s 41A CrPC), and such documents are missing in the bunch of documents procured via above section or u/s 207 CrPC, then submit to the Court that such left-out/excluded documents be brought on record of Court. The case law is here.
Even if such seeking of documents is objected to for any legal reason, one can seek for inspection of such documents as held in here.
Limited Authority of Registry or Filing Section/Office attached to a Court
A Registry attached to a High Court or a Filing Section attached to a District/Magistrate Court has a limited set of functions on the administration of Justice and authority and they certainly can not exercise judicial function as held by Supreme Court here. Use this judgment, as appropriate, to ensure Court staff perform only their duties and nothing beyond that.
Time-bound disposal provisions in Various Enactments
Check this page here for various provision available in the gender-biased laws which specify time limits for disposal of cases.
Use of Interrogatories in Civil and Criminal cases
Carefully designed Interrogatories are a tool to extract helpful information from OP. Read more info here.
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Order XI – Discovery and Inspection (read with Sec 30) has the necessary Rules to be following to file an application for delivery of interrogatories in a Civil case like DVC, HMA24 etc.
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 287 provides a similar provision in Criminal cases in which a commission is issued.
Case laws here.
Usage of Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.)
If you are going to fight your case on your own as Party-in-person, make good use of Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.), which allows you to represent your co-accused, most probably, your parents or family members. Some case laws here.
Exemption from Personal Appearance in Court
You can seek exemption for self or other accused from appearing in the Court in a case u/s 205 CrPC. Vital Case laws are available here.
Absent Petition
You can seek exemption for self or other accused from appearing in the Court on a particular singular date in a case u/s 317 CrPC.
You can send your duly-filled, stamped and signed absent petitions to the Office of Superintendent of the Court where your case is going on, well in advance, with a cover letter to place your Absent petition on the Bench.
Non-bailable Warrants (NBWs) for arrest
It is highly possible that trial courts may issue NBWs at the drop of the hat. Despite having bail for the said accused already. So to overcome this issue, once has to file a Recall petition seeking recall of the NBW. Use these judgments here, to tide over this menace.
The general procedure is issue summons first, then bailable warrants and finally non-bailable warrants for arrest of accused.
Speedy Trial
Our right to Fair and Speedy Trial arises from Article 21 (read with Article 227) . The case laws are here. A landmark judgment is here which also refers to section 483 CrPC. Article 227 also is a remedy.
Arrest unnecessary adjournments
Tareeq pe tareeq epidemic can easily be addressed taking help u/s 309(2) CrPC which is amended by Act 5 of 2009, s. 21 (w.e.f. 1-11-2010). Read the Landmark judgment which insisted on the importance, utility and urgent need of Trial/Session Courts to use the 4th Proviso to this sub-section here (2013). A 2017 reportable decision here. Also Read the other judgments here (included AP HC case law).
Also if prosecution fails to bring the witnesses to Court for examination, Courts can deny granting adjournments as held here.
Also if prosecution or defence try to delay Cross-examination of a witness, Courts can at max defer to 3 days as held here and can also levy heavy fines as held in this tagline here.
Time-barred Litigation
Time-barred litigation should be attacked using the provision u/s 468 of CrPC.
Register a complaint against Public Servant (No sanction from Government required!!!)
If any Public servant (read as Judge, Magistrate or Police) does something to violate their duty as prescribed u/s 197 CrPC, they are liable for criminal prosecution u/s 166A IPC. Read full details here. Karnataka High Court clearly explains this here.
Discharge Petition
If the prosecution documents do not have any basis to connect you to the allegation listed in Charge sheet by Police, this is one opportunity to find the grounds and file a Discharge Petition and come out the case. Check out the landmark case laws here. Especially, B S Neelakanta judgment.
Case Calendar
The common frustration defence has with Prosecution in a false case is, absconding of the prosecution witnesses from Cross-examination. For obvious reasons, false case filers generally, do not appear for Cross examination. To tackle such scenarios, you can use the Supreme Court judgment to force the Trial judge to come up with case calendar for the entire case, which is available here.
Only 6 months Stay on Proceedings
It is common knowledge that one party goes to higher courts seeking to stay proceedings in lower court. Supreme Court has restricting this behavior of endless stay on proceedings which is impacting the disposal of cases in timely manner in this judgment here.
During Cross examination of Lying witnesses
Make good use of this set of legal weapons from Indian Evidence Act 1872.
59. Proof of facts by oral evidence. –– All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence.
60. Oral evidence must be direct. –– Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say ––
if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable.
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.
61. Proof of contents of documents. –– The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
101. Burden of proof. –– Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. –– When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
132. Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate. –– A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind:
Proviso. –– Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer.
138. Order of examinations. –– Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. A landmark judgment is available here.
146. Questions lawful in cross-examination. –– When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend––
(1) to test his veracity,
(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
(3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him, or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture:
Provided that in a prosecution for an offence under section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is an issue, it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross-examination of the victim as to the general immoral character, or previous sexual experience, of such victim with any person for proving such consent or the quality of consent.
155. Impeaching credit of witness. –– The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him: ––
(1) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(2) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;
Explanation. –– A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.
159. Refreshing memory. –– A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory.
The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct.
When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory. –– Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document:
Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original. An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.
160. Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in section 159. ––A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 159, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document.
Perjury is nearby
Let the OP lie in Court. Just ensure you have the truth (hint: evidences) with you. Perjury will be awaiting just in case an illegal order gets to be passed. Here are the Case laws.
Contempt Jurisdiction to the rescue
If no order gets passed due to Perjury, let the Contempt jurisdiction take care of falsifications, material concealments, forgeries etc. Again do let the OP lie and cheat, which comes to them naturally. You can get punishment and fine levied upon the OP under the following provisions. Few case here.
Compensation
Delay in Pronouncing Judgments
Sometimes, Courts take enormous amount of time in pronouncing the Judgments after reserving the same. Supreme Court gave directions that can be used by us. One such landmark judgment is here.
Obtaining copy of the Judgment/Order for free
Order passed under
Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India
Check out this page here.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
In this Landmark judgment, 3-judge bench held as follows,
35. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.
36. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated. Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.
37. The High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain pending for unduly period at the trial stage.
R.F. Nariman concurs and holds,
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and Anr Vs CBI on 28 March 20185. On a reference made to a 2-Judge Bench in the Delhi High Court, the learned Chief Justice framed, what he described as, “three facets which emanate for consideration”, as follows:
“(a) Whether an order framing charge under the 1988 Act would be treated as an interlocutory order thereby barring the exercise of revisional power of this Court?
(b) Whether the language employed in Section 19 of the 1988 Act which bars the revision would also bar the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for all purposes?
(c) Whether the order framing charge can be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?”
Answers given to the “three facets” are in paragraph 33 as follows:
“33. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we proceed to answer the reference on following terms:
(a) An order framing charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order.
(b) As Section 19(3)(c) clearly bars revision against an interlocutory order and framing of charge being an interlocutory order a revision will not be
maintainable.
(c) A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are
maintainable.
(d) Even if a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is entertained by the High Court under no circumstances an order of stay should be passed regard being had to the prohibition contained in Section 19(3)(c) of the 1988 Act.
(e) The exercise of power either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly and in exceptional circumstances be exercised keeping in view the law laid down in Siya Ram Singh (supra), Vishesh Kumar (supra), Khalil
Ahmed Bashir Ahmed (supra), Kamal Nath & Others (supra) Ranjeet Singh (supra) and similar line of decisions in the field.
(f) It is settled law that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot
be exercised as a “cloak of an appeal in disguise” or to re- appreciate evidence. The aforesaid proceedings should be used sparingly with great
care, caution, circumspection and only to prevent grave miscarriage of justice.”
Another 3-judge bench, again in Oct 2020, had to reiterate the position on the 6-months limit imposed by Supreme Courts, on all stays granted in Civil and Criminal Cases.
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and Anr Vs CBI on 15 Oct 2020Another 2-judge bench clarified that the automatic vacation of 6-months stay only applies to civil and criminal matters only but not to writ petitions.
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and Anr Vs CBI on 25 Apr 2022 (Clarification regd Writs)Citations: [2018 ILR KER 2 79], [2018 KHC 2 380], [2018 RCR CRIMINAL 2 415], [2018 SCALE 5 269],
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172610348/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5abbcd474a93267cfe9ebef0
Earlier Delhi High Court order (by Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji):
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117f222713e179478f3bf5
Landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court which held that, where appropriate High Courts should exercise its power available under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash baseless proceedings.
The Supreme Court had held that,
MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997“Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/574884/
Citation: 1998 (5) SCC 749, AIR 1998 SC 128
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
Mahadevi I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd & Ors on 10 July, 2017
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Shri Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra has delivered this wonderful judgment, clearly affirming that as per settled principles of law, if a FIR quash was requested which was filed at a wrong jurisdiction, the duty of the police SHO is to transfer it to the police station where the correct jurisdiction holds.
Sonu and others Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another on 10 October, 2007Reproduced 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
Bad Behavior has blocked 697 access attempts in the last 7 days.
