web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to

Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 13 Feb 2001

Posted on October 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment which emphasizes that Right to Speedy Trial is integral to Article 21 of Constitution.

Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 13 Feb 2001

Citations: [2001 ACR SC 1 719], [2001 AIR SC 1246], [2001 ALD CRI 1 559], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 582], [2001 JT SC 2 558], [2001 RCR CRIMINAL 1 838], [2001 RLW SC 2 297], [2001 SCALE 2 8], [2001 SCC 4 525], [2001 SCR 1 990], [2001 UC 1 652], [2001 AIR SC 0 795], [2001 BCR 5 323], [2001 AIR SC 1248], [2001 BOMCR CRI SC 323], [2001 CRIMES SC 1 248], [2001 CRLJ SC 1242], [2001 SUPREME 1 661], [2001 SLT 2 68], [2001 SRJ 3 341], [2001 CCR 1 197], [2001 JCC 1 185], [2001 AD SC 2 202], [2001 BLR 2 978], [2001 SCC CR 787], [2001 UJ SC 1 593], [2001 RECENTCR 1 838], [2001 AIR SCW 0 795], [2001 MLJ CRL 1 476]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/220491/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad90e4b0149711411b60

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Landmark Case Reportable Judgement or Order Right to Speedy Trial Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors | Leave a comment

Kantamneni Ravi Shankar Vs State of AP

Posted on September 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Kantamaneni Ravishankar Vs State of AP on 28 Aug 2020

4 months earlier, Anticipatory Bail was also granted to this Petitioner:

Kantamneni Ravi Shankar Vs State of AP on 17 May 2020

The genesis of this and such nonsensical false criminal cases is this GO:

2019GAD_RT2430 Lodge complaints and legal cases against false, baseless and defamatory news items published in Print, Electronic and Social Media

A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Kantamneni Ravi Shankar Vs State of AP Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Karanam Srinivasulu Vs State of AP on 1 September 2020

Posted on September 10, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court ordered the Government to implement G.O.No.411 in letter and spirit and the action of the State in registering the crime on the ground that the alcohol is brought into Andhra Pradesh from the neighboring State is held to be bad in law. Per G.O.No.426, 6 bottles of Beer was reduced to 3 bottles.

Karanam Srinivasulu Vs State of AP on 1 September 2020

G.O.Ms.No.411 dt: 2019-09-24

2019-09-24 2019REV_MS411 Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 - Maximum quantity of intoxicants that a person can possess without permit or licence

G.O.Ms.No.426 dt: 2019-10-11

2019-10-11 2019REV_MS426 Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 – Maximum number of Beer bottles that a person can possess without permit or licence

A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YCP are here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Karanam Srinivasulu Vs State of AP Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Posted on August 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court gave this landmark reportable judgment regd delay condonation under Sec 5 of Limitation Act.

13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated
benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

 

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Citations: [2012 AIR SC 1506], [2012 ALR 91 879], [2012 AWC SC 3 2651], [2012 CALLT SC 3 65], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 20], [2012 CLT 113 1066], [2012 COMPCAS SC 174 387], [2012 CTC 2 240], [2012 ELT SC 277 289], [2012 GLH 1 670], [2012 ITR SC 348 7], [2012 JLJR 2 252], [2012 JCR SC 3 59], [2012 PLJR 2 371], [2012 RLW SC 3 2142], [2012 SCALE 2 782], [2012 SCC 3 563], [2013 SLJ SC 1 320], [2012 TAXMAN SC 207 163], [2012 SCC CIV 2 327], [2012 SCC CRI 2 580], [2012 SCC L&S 1 649], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 192], [2012 GUJ LH 1 670], [2012 AIC 112 69], [2012 CALLJ 2 93], [2012 CALLT 3 65], [2012 VST 54 188], [2012 SCT 2 269], [2012 SUPREME 2 244], [2012 CLT 1 338], [2012 AIR SC 0 1812], [2012 SCR 1 1045], [2012 SLT 2 312], [2012 JT 2 483], [2012 CHN SC 3 20], [2012 CCC 2 1], [2012 AIOL 103], [2012 SCC L&S 2 649], [2012 SCJ 3 873], [2012 SCC CR 2 580], [2012 LW 4 100], [2013 CPR 2 306], [2013 CPR 3 622], [2012 CUTLT 113 1066], [2012 SCR 0 500], [2012 TAXMANNCOM SC 20 347]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20289457/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af18e4b014971141598b

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Dismissed Due to Delay In Appeals Filed Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

All Bail Judgments

Posted on August 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are all kinds of Bail matters, granted/denied, Regular/Anticipatory etc

  • Station Bail
  • Regular Bail Orders u/s 437
  • Anticipatory Bail Orders u/s 438 CrPC
  • Default or Statutory Bail u/s 167(2)
  • Transit Bail
  • NBW Judgments

 


Index to MASTER sitemap here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 167 - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours CrPC 167(2) - Default or Statutory Bail CrPC 437 - When bail may be taken in case of Non-Bailable Offence CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail | Leave a comment

Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited on 25 September 2015

Posted on August 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited on 25 September 2015

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117608503/

 

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Ajay Kumar Bisnoi and Anr Vs MS KEI Industries Limited Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 205 – Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd and Ors | Leave a comment

Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014

Posted on July 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of AP has held in this Anticipatory Bail application, to be a falsely implicated case against petitioners. Certain guidelines were passed.

It is most unfortunate that the de facto complainant has implicated her in laws, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, parents of the mother-in-law and their relatives, two more sisters of her husband and their husbands who are residing in foreign countries. A reading of the complaint gives an impression that the de facto complainant has implicated almost all the relatives of her husband and their other close relatives who are visiting her husbands house. This is most unfortunate situation. This type of complaint gives an impression that Section 498-A is being misused to harass not only the husband of the de facto complainant but all his relatives. It is alleged that in order to force the husband to come to their terms or in order to meet their huge demands, this kind of complaints are being given. How difficult it would be for those persons staying in Australia, Jeddah or USA to come over to India and face the criminal case and prove their innocence.

Truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided unless fair and dispassionate investigation is completed. Sometimes, after full-fledged trial only, truth may come out. There cannot be any doubt to say that there is dowry menace in the society. But, at the same time, it is also a fact that certain marriages are performed without any dowry. Due to ill-advice or under a wrong impression that if a complaint is lodged under section 498-A IPC, the husband may come to terms, complaints are being lodged with the police. When differences arise, there should be proper counselling before and after marriage. It is quite natural that husband and wife would have faced different circumstances and environment from their childhood resulting in gaining different impressions and opinions and therefore they may have difference of opinion on life style and on several other issues. Therefore, issues have to be resolved by trying to understand one another, particularly, when the parties have children, special care has to be taken to protect the interest of the children. The welfare of the children should be given utmost importance. Therefore, proper counselling at initial stage would help the parties. It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.

Here are the guidelines.

It appears that there is every need to give similar directions in Andhra Pradesh. Under Domestic Violence Act, protection officer is required to assist the police and the Court. Section 14 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 envisages that the Magistrate may, at any stage of the proceedings under this Act, direct the respondents or the aggrieved person either singly or jointly to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who posses such qualification and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-compoundable offence.
In the light of the above discussion, the following guidelines have been issued.
a) A fair and dispassionate investigation should be conducted. After completing investigation, the same should be verified by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
b) During the course of investigation, if the investigating officer is satisfied that there is false implication of any person in the complaint then he may delete the names of such persons from the charge sheet after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police or any other officer equivalent to that rank.
c) As soon as a complaint is received either from the wife alleging dowry harassment or from the husband that there is every likelihood of him being implicated in a case of dowry harassment, then, both the parties should be asked to undergo counselling with any experienced counsellor or counsellors. The report of such counsellors should be made as a part of the report to be submitted by the investigating officer to the Court.
d) The Superintendent of Police, in consultation with the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, may prepare a panel of counsellors and such panel of counsellors along with their address and phone numbers should be made available at all the police stations.
e) Normally, no accused should be arrested, where the allegation is simple dowry harassment. If the arrest is necessary during the course of investigation, the investigating officer should obtain permission of the Superintendent of Police or any other officer of the equal rank in metropolitan cities. If arrest is not necessary, the police may complete the investigation and lay charge sheet before the Court without arresting the accused and seek necessary orders from the Court. However, in the case of dowry death, suspicious death, suicide or where the allegations are serious in nature such as inflicting of bodily injury etc., the police officer may arrest the accused. However, the intimation of such arrest should be immediately sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police who may give necessary guidance to the arresting officer.
f) No accused or witness should be unnecessarily called to the police station and as soon as the purpose of summoning them to the police station is over they should be sent back. There should not be any unnecessary harassment to any person i.e. either to the relatives of the de facto complainant or to the relatives of the husband.
g) The higher police officers should see that the parties do not make any allegations that they are forced to come to any settlement in police stations against their wish. However, this does not mean that the police officers should not make any effort for amicable settlement.
h) The advocates have to play their role in trying to unite the families. They must act as social reformers while dealing with these kind of cases, particularly, where the couple have children. Even when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, they should examine the matter judiciously and consider whether there are valid grounds for remanding the accused to the judicial custody. No accused should be remanded to judicial custody mechanically in routine manner. If the Magistrate feels that the accused cannot be released after taking bonds, necessary orders may be passed accordingly.

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, is requested to issue necessary instructions to all the concerned in this regard.

 

Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014

Citations: [

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122766842/

It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.


This is followed in AP High Court judgment here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors Legal Terrorism Preeti Gupta and Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand and Anr Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP | Leave a comment

Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife

Posted on July 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This can be considered as a sitemap of all Summary pages on my site, Shades of Knife.

Delivery of Justice

  • All Bare Acts of India here.
  • All Compulsory Registration of Marriage in India – Both Acts and Rules here.
  • All Dowry related case laws here.
  • All Dowry Harassment Judgments under Section 498A of IPC here.
  • All Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC here.
  • All Matters related to Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) here.
  • All Bail Matters here.
  • All Condone Delay Judgments here.
  • All Transfer Petition Judgments here.
  • All Look Out Circular Decisions here.
  • All Compensation Judgments for Motor Vehicle Accidents or other mishaps here.
  • All Defamation Judgments here.
  • All Domestic Violence Judgments here.
  • All Divorce Judgments here.
  • All Maintenance Judgments here.
  • All Acquittal from Criminal Matrimonial Cases here.
  • All Perjury Judgments here.
  • All Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. here.
  • All Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C. here.
  • All Quash Judgment u/s 482 Cr.P.C. here.
  • All Amicable ways of working with Advocates here.
  • All Life Cycles of various cases here.
  • All Passport Judgments here.
  • All Contempt of Court Judgments here.
  • All Legal templates and Drafting here.

 

 

Administration of Justice:

  • All Protection from Police High-handedness here.
  • All Reliefs from Judiciary here.
  • All publicly available legal research tools here.
  • All Video Conferencing Guidelines of Courts in India here.
  • Usage of A4 sheets with Double-Sided Printing for all purposed in Court here.
  • eCourts Project
  • AI-based Legalbots
  • Various rights covered under Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of Constitution of India here.
  • Staff on Administration of Justice, such as Registry Staff can not exercise Judicial functions such as deciding/dismissing applications/petitions based on their maintainability. See here.
  • All Legal strategies and Defence here.
  • All Law Concepts explained here. 

 

Personal Interest

  • All Legal Goals to Achieve under Judicial Activism (Via Public Interest Litigation) here.
  • All Decisions of High Courts to be made applicable in Other High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India here.
  • All false cases laid on me [Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife] here.

 

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | 2 Comments

Dowry Prohibition Act Judgments

Posted on July 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are a collection of judgment pertaining to Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and other cases involving Dowry element.

  1. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989 [SC:Cruelty should be such that, as to make woman commit harm to herself]
  2. Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990 [CalHC: Agreement is prerequisite for Sec 4 conviction]
  3. Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992 [BomHC: Any property demanded not in connection of marriage is not dowry]
  4. Harikumar Vs State of Karnataka on 22 October 1993 [SC: Section 8A of Dowry Prohibition Act is not unconstitutional]
  5. Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka on 24 January 2001 [Presumption does not let Prosecution free from establishing their case before burden of proof shifts to accused]
  6. Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001 [BomHC: Dowry demand is made out anytime before, during or after marriage, as long it is in connection with marriage]
  7. State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors on 3 Sep 2009 [SC: Giving dowry under demand is a crime u/s 3 of DP Act read with Sec 2 of the DP Act]
  8. Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010 [DHC: Dowry giver is protected from prosecution]
  9. Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011 [KarHC: Relies on this case here]
  10. Uma Devi Vs State and Anr on 01 Aug 2011 [DHC: Dowry giver is protected from prosecution]
  11. Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 (Overruled)
  12. Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013 [MadHC: Relies on SC decision State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors here]
  13. Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Demand for dowry in connection with marriage was available so, Dowry Demand allegation is made out]
  14. Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015 [Dowry not proved in a DV Case]
  15. Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Landmark: Demand for dowry in connection with marriage]
  16. Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016 []
  17. Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January, 2016 [Dowry element is time-barred due to AP DP Rules 1998]
  18. Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016 []
  19. Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 [Invoked AP DP Rules 1998]
  20. Shivendra Raizada and Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 6 December 2018 [Gifts are not Dowry]
  21. M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Dowry should either be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage]
  22. Rajesh Chaddha Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 13 May 2025 [SC : Vague and omnibus allegations cannot sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.]

 

Bare Act, Amendments, Rules etc

Dowry Prohibition Act here.

State-enacted Rules are here.

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Frequently Asked Questions – Dowry Prohibition Act (DPA) Jurisprudence in India

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is a special law enacted to prohibit the giving, taking, or demanding of dowry at the time of marriage or afterward. It criminalizes dowry practices and provides for penalties, including imprisonment and fines, to deter society from this social evil.

Under the Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given, taken, or demanded as a condition for marriage. This includes cash, gifts, ornaments, vehicles, real estate, or any other valuable items provided to the bride or groom’s family. Any demand for additional gifts or money after marriage is also treated as dowry.

In addition to the Dowry Prohibition Act, other penal provisions are often invoked in dowry cases, including:

  • Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by husband or relatives
  • Section 304B IPC – Dowry death
  • Section 34 IPC – Common intention

These sections are commonly applied in conjunction to address cruelty, harassment, and fatal incidents related to dowry demands.

Yes. The demand for dowry alone is an offence under the Act. Even if the dowry is not physically delivered, the mere act of demanding money or valuables in connection with marriage amounts to an offence and attracts legal consequences.

Yes. The law recognizes that dowry harassment may involve multiple persons. Therefore, relatives of the husband, such as in-laws, can also be prosecuted if they actively participate in demanding or pressuring the bride for dowry.

Punishment varies depending on the severity:

  • Simple dowry demand may attract imprisonment and a fine.
  • In cases of dowry death (death within 7 years of marriage due to dowry harassment), enhanced punishment under Section 304B IPC is applied.
    Courts have often noted that dowry offences are serious and socially harmful, justifying strict penalties.

Bail is not automatic in dowry-related offences, especially under serious sections like 304B IPC or when there is strong evidence of cruelty or death. However, both anticipatory bail and regular bail may be considered based on the facts, severity, and compliance with investigation procedures.

Yes. A fair trial entails examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Courts have emphasized that complainants and accused both must be afforded a chance to be heard, and evidence must be tested impartially during trial proceedings.

Refusal to have sexual relations alone does not constitute dowry harassment. However, when such refusal is coupled with coercion, cruelty, or demand for dowry, it may form part of evidence for cruelty under Section 498A IPC or for establishing harassment in dowry practice cases.

Yes. Dowry death convictions have been upheld on circumstantial evidence, especially where:

  • Death occurs within 7 years of marriage,
  • There is proof of harassment, cruelty, and dowry demand,
  • The conduct of the accused suggests involvement.
    Courts have clarified that even in the absence of direct evidence, consistent and cogent circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction.

Medical and forensic evidence often play a critical role, especially in dowry death cases. Courts rely on autopsy reports, injury examinations, and forensic findings to build the prosecution’s case on cause of death, timing of injuries, and whether they align with alleged cruelty or harassment.

Once a dowry-related FIR is registered and investigation begins, the prosecution proceeds in the name of the State, not the complainant. Therefore, withdrawal of an FIR depends on court approval and merits under Section 439/482 CrPC, and is not solely at the complainant’s discretion.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has held that when proceeding against parents were quashed on the ground that Magistrate had taken cognizance after three years, husband also gets same benefit.

Although, the learned Single Judge of High Court dealt with various points raised by the appellants and negatived the same by recording the detailed order, his attention does not appear to have been drawn to the order dated 24.10.2006 passed by the co-ordinate bench in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003 whereby the proceedings of CC No.240/2002 were quashed qua the parents of the appellants on the ground that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance after three years. Respondent No.2 is not shown to have challenged the order passed in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003. Therefore, that order will be deemed to have become final. We are sure that if attention of the learned Single Judge, who decided Criminal Petition No.4152/2006 had been drawn to the order passed by another learned Single Judge in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003, he may have, by taking note of the fact that the learned Magistrate did not pass an order for condonation of delay or extension of the period of limitation in terms of Section 473 Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings of CC No.240/2002.

 

Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007

Citations: [2007 AIOL 1286], [2007 SCALE 14 321], [2007 SCC 13 165], [2008 CRLJ SC 1375], [2007 SCR 13 478], [2009 SCC CRI 1 170], [2008 AIR SC 787], [2008 AIC SC 61 102], [2008 CRILJ 1375]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1494950/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135cd


Earlier judgment of AP High Court is available here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Quashed Due To Time Barred Cognizance CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed Landmark Case Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
vipintalwar vipin talwar @vipintalwar ·
12 Jun

Adani's Green Transformation Is Visible from the Ground Up

Tree plantation drives are common. Achieving an 88% survival rate is not.

At PEKB, the high survival rate means the restoration is not just happening on paper... it's creating real forests, real biodiversity, and real

Reply on Twitter 2065309482964697362 Retweet on Twitter 2065309482964697362 65 Like on Twitter 2065309482964697362 78 X 2065309482964697362
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ratansharda55 Ratan Sharda 🇮🇳 रतन शारदा @ratansharda55 ·
12 Jun

Bravo @navikakumar

Reply on Twitter 2065395655284338898 Retweet on Twitter 2065395655284338898 93 Like on Twitter 2065395655284338898 363 X 2065395655284338898
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
hindujagrutiorg HinduJagrutiOrg @hindujagrutiorg ·
12 Jun

Amazon Insults Aryabhata

Aryabhata gave the world ZERO.
Amazon gave him ZERO respect.

Turning Bharat's greatest mathematician into a marketing prop for "zero fees" is not creativity, it's cultural insult.

@amazonIN Apologise. Withdraw the ad. Respect India's civilisational

Reply on Twitter 2065269861383835852 Retweet on Twitter 2065269861383835852 368 Like on Twitter 2065269861383835852 441 X 2065269861383835852
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
its_the_dr Johnny Midnight ⚡️ @its_the_dr ·
12 Jun

That’s so true! George Carlin.

Reply on Twitter 2065238521929953768 Retweet on Twitter 2065238521929953768 191 Like on Twitter 2065238521929953768 572 X 2065238521929953768
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Cruelty as a Criminal Offence Explained June 12, 2026
  • Bail Compliance Undertaking Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template June 12, 2026
  • Warning Signs of Escalating Matrimonial Litigation – Early Red Flags Every Spouse Should Recognize June 12, 2026
  • Objections a Defence Advocate Can Raise When the Prosecution Produces Documentary Evidence – Complete Trial Strategy Guide June 5, 2026
  • How to File a Complaint Against an Advocate in India – A First-Timer’s Complete Guide June 5, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,903 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,427 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,285 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,721 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,107 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,948 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,874 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,705 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,618 views)
  • Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (1,498 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (411)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (381)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (362)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (61)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (752)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (328)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (93)Legal Procedure (77)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • ShadesOfKnife on Lifecycle Stages of a Section 498A IPC Case

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (7)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Scheduled Workers Platform Configuration Maintenance June 22, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 22, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC Jun 10, 20:16 UTC Scheduled - On 2026-06-22 from 12:00-13:00 UTC, Cloudflare will be performing scheduled maintenance on the data store responsible for Workers platform configuration. During this maintenance window, customers will be unable to make configuration changes for up to 3 minutes. This […]
  • Zero Trust Underlying Storage Maintenance June 18, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 18, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC Jun 12, 00:38 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for the backend storage system supporting Cloudflare One Client (WARP) / Zero Trust device management. Services will continue to operate normally. During a brief window of up to 3 minutes, device-related settings will be […]
  • ICN (Seoul) on 2026-06-17 June 17, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 17, 17:00 - 22:00 UTC Jun 4, 13:40 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2026-06-17 between 17:00 and 22:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 35.201.187.8 | S June 13, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 5 | First: 2025-10-28 | Last: 2026-06-13
  • 35.194.231.180 | S June 13, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 3 | First: 2026-06-13 | Last: 2026-06-13
  • 8.231.253.51 | S June 13, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4 | First: 2026-06-13 | Last: 2026-06-13
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 607 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel