Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors on 17 May 2010

Posted on April 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has settled the following question of law:

the question of inheritance of co-parcenery property by the illegitimate children, who were born out of the live-in-relationship, could not arise.

Citations: [2010 AIR SCC 2685], [2010 AIR SCC 0 3503], [2010 CTC 3 654], [2010 JT 5 534], [2010 RCR CIVIL 3 252], [2010 SCCC 11 483], [2010 AD 6 478], [2010 SCC 0 515], [2010 SCCJ 5 442], [2010 ALT 5 4], [2010 LW 4 791], [2010 MLJ 7 953], [2010 SLT 4 419], [2010 AIOL 333], [2010 SCALE 6 53], [2010 SUPREME 4 433], [2010 SCCC CIV 4 498], [2010 AIC 91 54], [2010 CALLJ 2 176], [2010 ALR 81 230]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1513913/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee7e4b0149711415176

This is contradicted (but NOT overruled) in Revanasiddappa And Another v. Mallikarjun And Others here.

Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020

Posted on April 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that, without eligibility for the post of District Judge, petitioners (who are subordinate judiciary) cannot claim stake for the post/continue in the post reserved for Advocates (25%) and hence they have to be reverted to their earlier posts.

From Para 48,

48. In the case of Dheeraj Mor and others cases, time to time interim orders have been passed by this Court, and incumbents in judicial service were permitted to appear in the examination. Though later on, this Court vacated the said interim orders, by that time certain appointments had been made in some of the States and in some of the States results have been withheld by the High Court owing to complication which has arisen due to participation of the ineligible in-service candidates as against the post reserved for the practising advocates. In the cases where such in-service incumbents have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from bar as we find no merit in the petitions and due to dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the judicial officers, as sequel no fruits can be ripened on the basis of selection without eligibility, they cannot continue as District Judges. They have to be reverted to their original post. In case their right in channel for promotion had already been ripened, and their juniors have been promoted, the High Court has to consider their promotion in accordance with prevailing rules. However, they cannot claim any right on the basis of such an appointment obtained under interim order, which was subject to the outcome of the writ petition and they have to be reverted.

Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC OnLine SC 213]

Circus feats of the YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh

Posted on April 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A curated list of mangled-up decisions of incumbent YCP Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and the consequences suffered by public thereof and how Hon’ble Courts and Tribunals of this Great Nation did their best to protect State of Andhra Pradesh and it’s people. For legal litigation against incumbent Chief Minister in his personal capacity, go here.

Disclaimer: These are many more which I may not be aware of or may not have details to capture on this page. If you want to share such information, please use the Contact me page.

1. Destruction of Prajaa Vedika

2. Review of Power Purchase Agreements

3. Reduction of Z+ category security cover for Opposition Leader N. Chandrababu Naidu

4. Reverse Tendering in Polavaram HydroPower Project Contract

5. Disclose Government Stand on Swiss Challenge

6. Failure in Transferring of Lands to Bundar Port

7. Give reasons for removal of Agricultural Market Yard Chairmen

8. Direction to APERC to finalize Power prices

9. Decision by Executive Council in contrary to Universities Act

10. What is action taken by Government when School uniforms and text books are sold for inflated prices?

11. What is the Government policy to allocate Government lands to Private individuals and Organizations?

12. Notices to Botsa and Buggana on the Committee regd Capital Amaravati

13. Not conducting Panchayat Elections even after High Court directions

Finalize reservations before Jan 7th 2PM and share with SEC

BC reservations reduced to 24% from 34%

14. Basis/norm for giving payment for Pasters, Imams and Mauzans

15. Cannot dissolve Temple Boards as per Government wish

16. Why payments to Solar and Tidal Power Generation companies are pending?

High Court says, APSPDCL should immediately Pay the pending dues to Solar, Tidal Power Generation companies, as committed to them to be paid in 4 weeks here.

17. Liquor Prohibition

Bars reduced from 840 to 530. Madya vimochana Prachara Committee. Not sure how much of public funds are grabbed under this guise. Fake brands. Exponential rates.
Why no reduction in retail liquor business in AP in Prohibition is target? What is the reason for reducing bars? 04-12-2019
Why advance notice not issued to Bar owners before reducing them?
Stay on Old Bar licenses and Issue of New Licenses

18. YCP Colors to Panchayat Buildings

- Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020 [WP(PIL) allowed by AP High Court]
- State of AP Vs Muppa Venkateswara Rao on 23 March 2020 [SLP dismissed by Supreme Court]
- G.O. Ms. No. 623 [Guidelines on Colour combination theme for painting of Gram Panchayat Buildings; Attempted Disguising Technique: Colours representing Various revolutions]
- Suryadevara Venkata Rao Vs State of AP on 05 May 2020 [High Court suspended the G.O. Ms. No.623 and it’s implementation]
  - Final Order here. [G.O. Ms. No.623 is quashed]
- State of AP Vs Suryadevara Venkata Rao on 03 June 2020 [Supreme Court dumped the Civil Appeal against above High Court Judgment]

19. Mandatory English medium in School Education system

- High Court: Will recover funds spent on Printing Academic books, running of classes from responsible officers.
- Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 15 April 2020 [G.O Issued by Govt of Andhra Pradesh is held to by lacking total application of mind]
- G.O. Ms. No.20 [Collect feedback from Parents of Children regd their preference for Medium of Instruction in all Government schools in the State – Dt 21 April 2020; Attempted Disguising Technique: Parents will choose English this time as their preferred medium of teaching for their children]
- Supreme Court

20. How can you appoint In-charge Chairman where is an incumbent Chariman for APPSC?

No one interferes in the duties of APPSC Chairman Uday Bhaskar

21. Damodar Naidu has qualifications to become V.C. Dismissal of Petitions challenging his appointment

22. Suspension of Jasthi Krishna Kishore

23. First installment of Rs. 1845 Crores received under NREGS for 2019-20 from Central Government not deposited into Gram Panchayats. Deposit within 1 month.

24. Three Capital Cities for Andhra Pradesh

Why impose section 144 CrPC on peacefully agitating farmers for Amaravati?
Why violence was unleashed on women protesters and no women police to apprehend them?
No movement of Government offices from Amaravati until the petitions about Capital city are pending. If moved, State Government and Department Officials will be liable for consequences and spent amount will be recovered from personal pockets.
Submit all reports from GN Rao Committee and BCG.
Andhra Pradesh to have 3 Capital cities (Kurnool-Judicial Capital, Visakhapatnam-Administrative/Executive Capital and Amaravathi-Legislative Capital)
- Bill #1
- Bill #2
- Troubling farmers here.
Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi challenged the Trifurcation of State in the guise of decentralized development/administration here.
- State went to Supreme Court here on the Status Quo granted. How desparately irresponsible!!
- Additionally, fandogs went to supreme court and got nice buttslaps here.
Insider Trading Allegations case
- Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 19 Jan 2021
  - State of AP Vs Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Ors on 19 Jul 2021 (Supreme Court crushed the Petition!)

25. Revoke the GO pertaining to the appointment of EO for Sri Durgamalelswara Swamy temple, Vijayawada

26. YS Vivekananda Reddy Murder case

What are the objections in entrusting YS Vivekananda Reddy murder case to CBI? YS Jagan reddy himself demanded for CBI investigation while being a Opposition Leader. What is your current stand after coming to Power now?

27. GVMC Elections

When is the election notification for GVMC going to be announced?

28. Photos of YS Jagan Reddy on Panchayat Buildings

No photo of PM in Parliament, No Chief Justice photo in High Court. But why CM Photo on Panchayat Buildings? [Investigate these case laws: https://www.casemine.com/search/in/Common%20Cause%20advertisements%20public%20funds]

29. Navaratnaalu – Pedalaku illu

High Court: Can not give Amaravati lands to landless poor. No one side game like this allowed.
How can you grab lands of poor? Assigned lands turned into House sites? Grab from one poor and dole out to another? KVPS Writ
Trying to Grab Kakinada Mangrove forest area. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: to construct homes for poor
- Another set of cases here.
Converting Poramboke lands into Assessed Waste lands in Kadapa. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: to grant house sites to poor
Land grab in East Godavavi District. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: To construct Gram Sachivalayam, Raithu Bharosa Kendram, YSR Clinic
Attempt to allot lands to people from Economically Weaker Sections out side Amaravati region here.
- Summary dismissal at Supreme Court here.

30. Funds released under Central Employment Scheme

Why funds released under Central Employment Scheme for the year 2018-19 to the tune of Rs. 1134 Cr not disbursed?

31. Obstructing the peaceful tour of N Chandrababu Naidu in Vizag

DGP to be present in Court and give explanation how can notice be issued under section 151 CrPC.
Under what authority/rule was the notice under 151 CrPC issued to NCBN
Why no action is taken on officers who issues illegal notice under section 151 CrPC?

32. Withdrawal by MNCs

33. Trying to sell away Government Property

–

34. All TDP schemes renamed to YSR/Jagananna Schemes

NTR Vaidya seva Trust into YSR Arogya Sri

35. Shutter Down to Anna Canteens

36. Attempting to Abolish the Legislative Council of AP

37. Sand mining

38. Removal of L.V. Subramanyam

39. Non implementation of Disha Act

40. Special Status to AP

41. Decision of State Election Commissioner to postpone Panchayat Elections in AP by 6 weeks due to Pandemic nCOVID-19 (Coronavirus outbreak)

- State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission on 18 March 2020 [Supreme Court did not interfere with the Decision of SEC to postpone Panchayat elections]
- Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 5 of 2020 Promulgated on 10 April 2020 [Via this Ordinance, Rules were framed reducing SEC tenure from 6 years to 3 and making retired Judges only criteria to become a SEC, both squarely targetted to get Shri, Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar out of SEC role and engage Sri Justice V.Kanagaraj, Retired High Court Judge, as SEC of A.P State Election Commission; Attempted Disguising Technique: Ordinance to reform SEC, not sack Ramesh]
  - The Ordinance No 5 of 2020 got quashed and along with it all other related GOs got kicked into drain, via [Dr N Ramesh Kumar IAS Vs State of AP on 29 May 2020].
  - State of AP Vs N Ramesh Kumar IAS and Ors [Supreme Court held that…]
  - State Election Commission also filed SLP which got tagged with above case here. So, no wastage of page for it.
- N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020 [Contempt Proceedings initiated against Chief Secretary Nilam Sawhney and others]

42. Violation of Lockdown Norms of MLAs and Cabinet Ministers of the incumbent party

- Kishore Para Vs State of AP []

43. Styrene Gas Leakage in Vizag (Visakhapatnam) on the early hours 3.35AM on 07 May 2020 from LG Polymers

1. First AP High Court says this…
2. Then National Green Tribunal directs the company to deposit 50 Crores first and further says this.
  1. NGT ordered to appropriate the above 50 Crores.
3. Then Supreme Court stays the above NGT Order regarding appropriating the 50 Crores deposited by LG Polymers here.

44. Sale of TTD properties donated by devotees

45. Suspense of AB Venkateshwara Rao (DG) IPS

The DGP of AP Police was suspended but AP High Court reinstated him back into service here.
1. The routine began and the SLP was filed at Supreme Court which granted a Stay on the operation of the Order of High Court here. 4 Lakhs was paid to the Legal team of a Senior Counsel and a AoR.

46. Lack of medical equipment for Corona Warrior such as PPE Kits

Harassment to Dr Sudhakar [Since he was not in CBI/Police Custody, he was ordered to be released from the Mental Hospital]
AP Police have brought in more illegal rules than those in Bihar.

47. Change in electricity slabs

48. Reduction in Government Pension Holders

49. Baseless Quid Pro Quo Allegation in Amaravati land dealings

50. Scam in purchase of COVID-19 kits

51. Pre-recorded and heavily Edited name-sake Press meets

52. Pension at 45 years only

53. Baseless Allegation of Chandrababu Naidu Benami

54. Baseless Allegation Kodi-katti

55. Baseless Allegation of SC/ST sub-plan funds diversion

56. Baseless Allegation of 100 Crores corruption in Pattiseema project

57. Baseless Allegation that Estimations are increased in Polavaram project (Allegation)

Totally forgetting the above Baseless allegations vehemently trumpeted, request was sent to PM, begging to approve the estimates (yes, same estimates which were passed during NCBN tenure in 2017-18) here.

58. YCP Trolls (Incl MLA and MP) attack the Judges of AP High Court

High Court of Andhra Pradesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh [Trolling due to adverse order in English Medium case]

59. YCP MLA Alla Rama Krishna’s attempt to get TDP National Party Headquarters demolished

Alla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 July 2020 [High Court questioned the Public interest in the PIL and dismissed it]

60. Delegation of powers to Secretaries of respective Departments to lodge complaints

GO is available here.

61. Filing of time-barred SLPs (invariably to spend public money on some benefactors)

Despite fully aware that the petition is hopelessly time-barred, SLPs are being filed at Supreme Court and Supreme clearly observed it and put it in it’s order for eternity here.

62. Usage of photographs of State Functionaries in Government-funded Advertisements

A PIL was filed seeking removal of Photos of Government functionaries such as CMs in Government-funded Advertisements here.

63. Appointment of N Harinath Reddy as Assistant Solicitor General for High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Adv Solomon Raju Manchala challenged the Appointment of N Harinath Reddy as Assistant Solicitor General for High Court of Andhra Pradesh here.

64. Depriving pregnant, Old women of pension

AP High Court Ordered the State government to make pension payments and ascertain the eligibility of the petitioners in Gram Sabha after giving opportunity to the petitioners here.

65. Filing of false cases for possession of liquor

AP High Court, while disposing a couple of writ petitions, has 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. Go here.

66. Baseless Criminal Cases on Journalists and Social Media

A false case was registered by AP CID on Telugu One YouTube channel owner but High Court Quashed it with an elaborate lecture on what is Police duty (thereby what is NOT) here.

67. Baseless Criminal case of Ex-Attorney General

A false case was registered against Ex Attorney General Dammalapati Srinivas here.
- A Stay was granted against all further investigation and any coercive action on any of the alleged accused person.
As usual, the stay was challenged in the Supreme Court here.

68. Tapping of Judges of AP High Court

As the adverse orders against the ill-moves of State Govt are sky-rocketing on weekly basis, Govt seems to have stooped to Phone tapping of Judges. The case is here.
High Court has scathing remarks against State Government to the tune of invoking Article 356 of Constitution of India… I am usre no better sense will prevail. Good for people of AP.

69. Land grabbing for Gannavaram Airport expansion, without paying Compensation to Land Owners

State govt permitted Airports Authority of India (AAI) to proceed with expansion of Gannavaram airport without paying compensation for the land grabbed from
- the veteran Cine Artist here.
- the ace Cine Producer here.

70. Hounding of Thullur MRO Anne Sudheer Babu

For doing his duties, Thullur MRO Anne Sudheer Babu is being hounded fruitlessly.

AP HC had stayed all the proceedings until further order here.
As usual, the junta went to SC and got a favorable Order here. Or so minions think and celebrated.

71. Demolition of Property of GITAM University

Suddenly, the District administration wakes up to the fact that certain portion of the land in use by the GITAM University was unauthorized and decides to demolish in the early dead night hours on 24th October, 2020

Check out the proceedings here.

72. Arrest in violation of Arnesh Kumar judgment (41A CrPC)

For a facebook post, Jangala Sambasiva Rao was booked and arrested in just a day and the bozo Magistrate granted Remand too. High Court held that both Police and Magistrate violated the landmark precedent in Arnesh Kumar judgment and demanded reports from both here.

73. Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam

In a sly attempt to shift Executive Capital from Amaravati to Visakhapatnam, the State Government transferred 30 Acres from Greyhounds to Collector Visakhapatnam. High Court on a PIL, demanded Govt to produce complete set of plans before beginning alienation of lands here.

75. Review of all decisions taken by TDP Government

Varla Ramaiah garu filed a Writ in AP HC here and obtained an interim stay on the operation of G.O.Rt.No. 1411 Dt 26.06.2019 and G.O.Rt.No. 344 Dt 21.02.2020
State Government went to Supreme Court here.

76. Kidnaps of Public by Police – Multiple Habeas Corpus Petitions

There are multiple habeas corpus petitions filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which alarmed the High Court and it wanted to check on the aspect of ‘breakdown of Constitutional machinery” under Article 356 of Constitution.

Case 1 : Reddi Govinda Rao Vs State of AP and Ors here.
- Supreme Court stayed the Order of AP High Court here.
Case 2 : Rayidi Naga Lakshmi and Anr Vs State of AP and Ors here.

77. Sale of Government lands in the name of Mission Build AP

A PIL was filed to stay the same of government lands in a namesake scam called as Mission Build AP here.

78. Decision of State Election Commissioner to conduct Panchayat Elections in AP as the Pandemic nCOVID-19 (Coronavirus outbreak) subsided phenomenally in Andhra Pradesh.

State Government got a stay on the Elections Schedule here from a single-judge bench.
- Division bench set it aside here.
The cabal, reportedly, went to Supreme Court here and got a facepalm, again.

79. Passing of Privilege Motion in AP Assembly against State Election Commissioner Sri Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar for his letter/communication to AP Governor seeking action against rabid legislators who attacked SEC.

Some Legislators got loose motions on the action being taken by SEC and vomit in press meets. SEC brought it to the notice of Governor via a Letter. This letter leaked to press. The Rabids got butt-hurt and moved a Privilege motion in Assembly (emailed it to Speaker). They seem to be depending on a Bombay High Court verdict in Nandlal case here.

80. SEC passed Order House Arresting an Advisor to Govt and prohibition on speaking with Media

One of the many advisors was misusing his position to influence the officials working on Election duty so State Election Commissioner took him to task here.

81. Arrest of MP RaghuRama Krishnam Raju

The Rebel MP of the YSRC Party was arrested on his birthday May 14th and was, as expected, tortured by the AP CID Police; Suo moto contempt proceedings initiated by AP High Court for not following the HC orders, news here.
Later Supreme Court granted bail to him here.

82. MPTC, ZPTC Elections

The Notification issued by the pet SEC of the the State Government was set aside a Single Judge Bench here.

83. Harassment to Anandaiah B who prepared and administered Ayurvedic medicine for COVID-related/induced difficulties

AP High Court provided relief to Mr. Ananadaiah who was being harassed by the Police of AP here.

84. Punishment for headstrong Government Officials under Contempt of Court Act

On 23 Jun 2021, AP High Court punished two officials (Panchayat Raj Commissioner Girija Shankar and horticulture commissioner Chiranjeevi Chowdary) of Government of AP, news here but later revised it to only fine news here and here.
On 23 Jul 2021, AP High Court issued NBWs (non-bailable arrest warrants) against two IAS officials (Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj) Gopala Krishna Dwivedi and BC Welfare department special chief secretary G Anantaramu) who were earlier part of Government of AP, news here.
On 24 Jul 2021, AP High Court issued NBW to Finance Secretary Satyanarayana along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- but later fined only Rs.10/- and suspended the punishment, news here.
On 02 Sep 2021, AP High Court punished 5 IAS officers (Manmohan Singh, Seshagiri babu, S S Rawat, Mutyla Raju) for contempt of Court along with fines news here.

85. Looting of natural resources

On 26 Jul 2021, National Green Tribunal orders issuance of notices to the Looters of bauxite here.

Just a footer… :0)

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and Anr Vs CBI

Posted on February 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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,

5. 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.”

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and Anr Vs CBI on 28 March 2018

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 2020

Another 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

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January 2020

Posted on January 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A wonderful pronouncement indeed, of a 5-eminent judge Constitutional bench which decided that once Anticipatory Bail is granted u/s 438 CrPC by either a Sessions Court or High Court, it does not have any time limit to it regarding it’s effect. Further, here it was held, No need to get a Regular Bail once AB is granted.

From now onwards, no need to covert Anticipatory Bail into a Regular Bail, upon closure of investigation by I.O. and filing of Charge sheet into a Trial Court.

Here is the Order passed.

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020 Order

And the 133-page jewel of judgment, endorsing the view taken by my favorite Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandavi in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre is below.

From Para 69 of the judgment of Justice Ravindra Bhat (On page 112),

69. Therefore, this court holds that the view expressed in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh, K.L. Verma, Nirmal Jeet Kaur, Satpal Singh, Adri Dharan Das, HDFC Bank, J.J. Manan and Naresh Kumar Yadav (supra) about the Court of Sessions, or the High Court, being obliged to grant anticipatory bail, for a limited duration, or to await the course of investigation, so as the “normal court” not being “bye passed” or that in certain kinds of serious offences, anticipatory bail should not be granted normally- including in economic offences, etc are not good law. The observations – which indicate that such time related or investigative event related conditions, should invariably be imposed at the time of grant of anticipatory bail are therefore, overruled. Similarly, the observations in Mhetre that “the courts should not impose restrictions on the ambit and scope of section 438 Cr.P.C. which are not envisaged by the Legislature. The court cannot rewrite the provision of the statute in the garb of interpreting it” is too wide and cannot be considered good law. It is one thing to say that as a matter of law, ordinarily special conditions (not mentioned in Section 438 (2) read with Section 437 (3) should not be imposed; it is an entirely different thing to say that in particular instances, having regard to the nature of the crime, the role of the accused, or some peculiar feature, special conditions should not be imposed. The judgment in Sibbia itself is an authority that such conditions can be imposed, but not in a routine or ordinary manner and that such conditions then become an inflexible “formula” which the courts would have to follow. Therefore, courts and can, use their discretion, having regard to the offence, the peculiar facts, the role of the offender, circumstances relating to him, his likelihood of subverting justice (or a fair investigation), likelihood of evading or fleeing justice- to impose special conditions. Imposing such conditions, would have to be on a case to case basis, and upon exercise of discretion by the court seized of the application under Section 438. In conclusion, it is held that imposing conditions such as those stated in Section 437 (2) while granting bail, are normal; equally, the condition that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Other conditions, which are restrictive, are not mandatory; nor is there any invariable rule that they should necessarily be imposed or that the anticipatory bail order would be for a time duration, or be valid till the filing of the FIR, or the recording of any statement under Section 161, Cr. PC, etc. Other conditions may be imposed, if the facts of the case so warrant.

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January, 2020 Judgement

Citations : [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 98], [2020 DLT SC 266 741]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123660783/

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sushila-aggarwal-and-others-versus-state-nct-of-delhi-and-another

5-judge bench holds no time limit could be fixed while granting anticipatory bail [Full report]

The life of this case is in detail available here.

Index of all Anticipatory Bail Matters is here and all Bail matters list is here.

S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001

Posted on January 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Unless a valid marriage is proved, a second marriage stands invalid and no offence under section 494 IPC attracts.

S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001

Citations: [2001 AIR SC 3576], [2001 SCALE 6 42], [2001 JT 7 219], [2001 AIR SC 3372], [2001 SCC 7 487], [2001 SUPREME 6 772], [2001 SCC CRI 1273], [2001 OLR 2 648], [2001 ALD CRI 2 634], [2001 AWC SC 4 2998], [2001 ACR SC 3 2486], [2001 DMC SC 2 544], [2002 ALT CRI 1 69]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1386675/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad9ce4b0149711411daa

Defamation Judgments

Posted on January 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here I list the landmark judgments from High Courts of India and Supreme Court of India.

1920-1925

Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor on 22 December 1922 (Bombay High Court: the purpose of the codified statute is that on any point specifically dealt with by it the law shall be ascertained by interpreting the language used; the Court is not entitled to invoke the Common Law of England in the matter of defamation)

1926-1930

Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint are accusations in nature and they do not have absolute privilege but only qualified privilege as provided by sec 499 of IPC)

1931-1935

1936-1940

1941-1945

1946-1950

1951-1955

1956-1960

1961-1965

Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter)

1966-1970

M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968 (Supreme Court of India: at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy.)

1971-1975

Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971 (Supreme Court of India: as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the court)

1976-1980

Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978 (defamation has to be filed with in time limitation as per 468 CrPC)

1996-2000

Mukund Martand Chitnis Vs Madhuri Mukund Chitnis And on 23 April 1991 ()
Dr. J.Sudarshan Vs R.Sankaran on 16 August, 1991 (Madras High Court: The Civil Court would confine its decision to the trespass, threat of injury and damage by the servants, agents and workmen of the various defendants and the entitlement of token damages by the respondent, while the criminal Court, the passage being per se defamatory, would proceed to find out whether any one of the 10 Exceptions to S. 499, I.P.C. would apply.)
Shatrughna Prasad Sinha Vs Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi and Ors on 10 September 1996 (SC: Statements made were not defamatory)

2001-2005

2006-2010

M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006 (Kerala HC: ‘Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.‘)
Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 Jul 2007 (SC: Limitation u/s 468 starts from the date of making the complaint and not on the date the cognizance was taken)
Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008 (Karnataka High Court: “a written statement is a public document” and “a criminal proceeding can be initiated when a civil proceeding is ongoing”)
Anubhav Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan on 5 October 2009 (At SC, all cases quashed, after settlement)

2011-2015

Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)
Gambhirsinh R.Dekare Vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Anr on 11 March 2013 (SC held allegation to the effect who authorised printing of defamatory statements is sufficient)
Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014 (Bombay HC: Divorce for husband due to mental cruelty via defamation by knife)
Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015 (Procedure for filing non-cognizable cases defined by Dipak Misra)
Rajdeep Sardesai Vs State Of A.P on 14 May 2015 (SC dismissed Quash against AP HC Order)
S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015 (At SC: Amendment allowed in complaint)

2016-2020

Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May, 2016 (Supreme Court: IPC 499 and 500 and CrPC 199 are Constitutionally valid)
Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha Vs Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd and Ors on 06 July 2017 (Delhi HC: No territorial jurisdiction)
Mahadev I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd and Ors on 10 July 2017 (Delhi HC:)
E.Krishna and Ors Vs Srinivasa Chary on 17 November 2017 (AP HC: Not defamation)
X Vs Y on 2 November, 2018 (Bombay HC: Impotent word is Defamatory)
M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020 (Kerala High Court: Complaint of defamation cannot be quashed under section 482 CrPC, as it does not have absolute privilege and only qualified privilege)
Rabindra Nath Pal Vs Ratikanta Paul and Ors on 6 Mar 2020 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Domestic Violence Judgments

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of Judgments under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and various facets of violence/cruelty within Matrimonial relationships under various Statutes even before this Act. Life Cycle of a Domestic Violence case under PWDV Act 2005 here.

Bare Act (along with Statement of Objects and Reasons) is here and Rules are here. A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.

1971-1980

Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975 [Definition of Mental Cruelty; Burden of Proof; Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Condonation of Cruelty]

1981-1990

1991-2000

V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [defined the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition]

2001-2005

MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about Interlocutory Order]

2006-2010

Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another on 7 July, 2006 (Right to Marry a person of one’s choice)
S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 (Supreme Court defined ‘Shared Household‘)
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 (Mental Cruelty defined)
Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 16 September, 2008 [BomHC: Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.]
V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009 ()
Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009 [KarHC: Audi Alterum Partem, Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance]
Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010 (Delhi High Court)
Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010 (BHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties)
Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010 (DelHC: From my favorite judge but bad judgment; deny maintenance in DVC as there was maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs Mamta Pandey on 1 Sep 2010 [DelHC: Definition of Residence for Jurisdiction purpose]
Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 [GujHC: Since wife was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, Court denied interim maintenance in DVC]

2011-2015

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011 (Women can also be made respondents)
Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 [GHC: Custody cannot be given to non-custodial parents under DV Act; Only visitation permissible to non-custodial parent]
Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012 (DV Conduct of parties prior to PWDV Act are to be considered; Mental Cruelty)
Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012 [SC: Unless there is a declaration of nullity/void of the marriage by a competent Court or authority, a aggrieved person can take advantage of benefits under DV Act.]
Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013 (Quashing of false DVC on relatives of husband)
Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013 (SC: No relationship in the nature of marriage, no DV can apply, No maintenance)
Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children]
Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
Santosh Sashkant Dhonde Vs Sarika Santosh Dhonde and Ors on 11 September, 2014 [BomHC: Hearing before Interim Orders]
Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014 (JMFC Court, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh)
A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015 (APHC: 2 grounds for quashing a DV Case, No shared household, any other case dismissed on same allegations; overruled by SC in Prabha Tyagi here)
Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015 [Ongole JCJC:]
Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015 (APHC: If any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions)
Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015 (Dipak Misra says, Judicially separated folks are also within the ambit of Aggrieved person)

2016-2020

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016 (Court can allow amendments to complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court)
Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016 (Unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of DVC)
Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016 [KarHC: Hold an inquiry and then recorded finding as to grant interim relief or not]
Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016 [Supreme Court strikes down words ‘adult male‘ from the definition of Respondent u/s 2(q) and also the proviso to sec 2(q)]
Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016 [AllHC: A Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C against a judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions under
Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is maintainable]
Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about final, intermediate and Interlocutory Orders]
Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017 (SC: ‘Domestic Relationship’ Necessary To Permit A Party To Occupy ‘Shared Household’)
Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Jallarapu Laxman Rao Vs Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu on 1 November, 2017 (AP HC: No Revision u/s 397/401 CrPC, as Sec 29 PWDV Act provides Revision/Appeal)
Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018 (DHC: Frame issues after hearing both parties)
Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018 (HPHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children)
Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [DHC: no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
Lalita Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018 (Live-in partner can also file DV case)
Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha case (File income affidavit as Prescribed in Kusum Sharma)
Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019 (SC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Upheld Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015 (CalHC: No DV, No Reliefs)
Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 (BIL pays interim maintenance)
Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (SC: No allegations of domestic violence; No shared household)
NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019 (Karnataka High Court)
Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020 (482 CrPC against DVC is not maintainable; Magistrate u/s 28(2) can apply judicial mind of Preliminary objections)
Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (SC: Overruled SR Batra judgment regd Shared Household concept; but also emphasized on the alternate accommodation)
S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020 ()

2021-2025

Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr on 18 Jan 2021 ()
Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021 (482 CrPC against DVC is maintainable as per Satish Chander)
Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Puttaraju Vs Shivakumari on 01 Apr 2021 (MHC: Time limitation applies only for offence u/s 31 but not for the application u/s 12 of PWDV Act 2005)
Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021 (RajHC: non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’)
Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (DHC: Daughter-in-law can be evicted but an alternate accommodation must be provided)
Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022 (BHC: Relatives who have no shared house-holding can also be respondents as per proviso to Sec 2(q))
- Ali Hamid Daruwala Vs Nahida Rishad Cooper and Anr on 28 Feb 2023 (BHC: Relying on Prabha Tyagi, BHC held that no shared householding requirement is necessary)
Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022 [SC: Limitation does not apply to Sec 12 applications under PWDV Act]
Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022 [DelHC: Mere fleeting or casual visits/living, without permanency, at different places shall not make it a shared household]
Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (SC: DIR is not mandatory; No shared holding required)
Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (JKHC: After WS, Magistrate may dismiss the DVC and cancel any interim orders passed)
Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disclose previous maintenance cases)
Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: My Own case: Disposal of DVC in 60 days)
Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 10 Oct 2022 (SC: Upheld BHC Judgment stating casual visits/stays do not qualify as temporary stay/residence)
S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022 [MadHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
Rajesh and Anr Vs Station House Officer and Ors on 05 Dec 2022 [KerHC: the existence of a domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondent is the sine qua non for seeking relief under the DV Act]
Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023 [KarHC: Rental amount in lieu of accommodation in shared household can be given]
Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023 [SC: No costs can be imposed on DV complainant for not proceeding with trial]
Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023 (PHHC: Interim Orders passed by Magistrate are appealable. Sessions Court can pass Interim Orders)
Abhishek Agarwala and Anr Vs Smti Komal Poddar on 01 Mar 2023 (MegHC: Don’t insist on appearance of Respondents on each and every adjournment)
Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023 [KarHC: No need to conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before passing Interim reliefs; Over rules Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009]
Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 [BomHC: DV allegedly committed outside India can also be tried by Indian Courts]
Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023 [KarHC: No Strict proof of marriage required; No validity of marriage to be checked]
Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and Ors Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 24 Apr 2023 [Relies on Kunapareddy, Kamatchi, ]
Sanjeev Kumar and Ors Vs Sushma Devi on 01 Jun 2023 [HimHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties]
Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [DelHC: Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023 [KarHC: No maintenance to idle sitting wife]
Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023 [APHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable]
Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023 [MPHC: Sections 21 and 31 of PWDV Act are not unconstitutional]
M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023 [MadHC: Approach the Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues]
Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023 [KarHC: A protection order under DV Act does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act]
Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024 [BomHC: Mere casual visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household]
Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted]
Palaparthi Shebha and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 16 Jul 2024 [APHC: Interim maintenance order is made effective from the date of petition and not from date of Order]
Shikha Lall Vs Prince Agarwal on 7 Nov 2024 [DelHC: Never resided in New Delhi so no jurisdiction under DV Act]
Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025 [AllHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members; Verify shared household condition satisfied or not before issuing notices; Dispose within 60 days]
Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [APHC: Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: there is no requirement for the personal presence/appearance of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences]
Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025 [Landmark judgment to rectify baseless Orders of maintenance by Family Court judges in Karnataka]
Abhijit Ankush Shelke and Ors Vs Shubhangi Abhijit Shelke and Anr on 09 May 2025 [SC: Voice sample may be compelled as per Sec 28(2) of PWDV Act and Article 20(3) will not apply]
Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs Vidhi Rawal on 19 May 2025 [SC: High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005]

2026-2030

Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026 [BHC: No suo moto perjury proceedings initiated]
Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026
Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 [CalHC : A wife can file a DV Act case from her temporary residence]
Dinesh kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026
Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026 [AllHC: DVC Quashed against relatives other than husband]
Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026 [KarHC: Interim Maintenance to wife set aside as she is having more income than husband]

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Umesh Kumar Vs State of AP and Anr on 6 September, 2013

Posted on December 16, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Supreme Court held that, Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of such application before the court concerned.

In the para 12,

12. In view thereof, if any person has forged in a letter under the name of the Samithi and forged the signature of Shri M.A. Khan, M.P., the matter being of grave nature requires investigation and, in view of above, we cannot find fault with the action initiated against Umesh Kumar, appellant. Once criminal law is put in motion and after investigation the charge sheet is filed, it requires scrutiny in the court of law. However, before the charges could be framed, Umesh Kumar, appellant, approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge sheet. The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the court cannot look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed along with the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of such application before the court concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of the charge. However, the inherent power of the court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to undergo the agony of a criminal trial. (Vide: Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 128; Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitulh Chanchani & Anr. AIR 1998 SC 2796; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; and Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 437)

Umesh Kumar Vs State of AP and Anr on 6 September, 2013

Citations: [JT 2013 (12) SC 213], [2014 ALL SCR 661], [2013 AD SC 9 581], [2014 AIR SC 1106], [2014 AJR 1 350], [2014 ALD CRI 1 304], [2014 ALLCC 84 850], [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 479], [2013 JLJR 4 151], [2013 KLJ 4 334], [2013 PLJR 4 284], [2015 RLW SC 1 391], [2013 SCALE 11 28], [2013 SCC 10 591], [2014 SCC L&S 2 237], [2014 SCJ 2 209], [2013 UC 3 1918], [2014 SCC CRI 1 338], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 809], [2013 AIC 130 53], [2013 SUPREME 6 323], [2013 AIOL 584], [2013 AIR SC 6062], [2013 SLT 7 656], [2013 AIR SCW 6062]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194914590/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af3fe4b0149711415ef0

Miriyala Divya and 5 Others Vs Govt of AP on 19 September, 2014

Posted on December 14, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Following the Apex Court judgment here, AP High Court delivered this judgment.

From Paras 17 and 18,

17 A Division Bench of this Court, in Mavuri Rani Veerabhadramma @ Kandarpa Prameela @ Mavuri Prameela v State of A.P.[10] after analysing the entire case-law on the point, in para 23, held as under:
23. The reference is answered with the following conclusions:
1. If a complaint is filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. before a Magistrate, he may take cognizance of the offence or postpone the issue of process either by making enquiry into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by the Police Officer or other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed. If the complaint is referred to the police for investigation and if the police files either the chargesheet showing that there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused or that there is no case to take cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of the offence irrespective of the result of the investigation and it amounts to sufficient compliance of Section 198 of Cr.P.C.
2. The police may also receive a complaint for the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. and register a crime. As per the amendment of the schedule, Section 494 of I.P.C. is made cognizable and the police are empowered to investigate the case. But the Magistrate is precluded from taking cognizance of the offence under Section 198 of Cr.P.C. on the charge-sheet filed by the police, when a complaint is not presented before the Magistrate for taking cognizance of the offence.
3. If a complaint for the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. is lodged along with other cognizable offences before the police and if the police files a charge-sheet, the Court can take cognizance of the offence under Section 494 of I.P.C. also along with other cognizable offences by virtue of Section 155(4) of Cr.P.C.
18 As per the principle enunciated in this case, the Magistrate can take cognizance of offence under Section 494 IPC basing on the police report, when the crime is consisting of a cognizable and non-cognizable offences.

From Paras 25 and 26,

25 As per the principle enunciated therein, the Court can take cognizance of offence under Sections 494 and 495 I.P.C basing on the police report even without corresponding amendment to Sections 320 and 198 Cr.P.C.
26 As per the principle enunciated in Krishna Kumar Case above, the ratio decidendi of the previous case alone has the force of law and became a binding precedent. In A. Subhash Babu case, the apex Court interpreted the scope of Section 198 Cr.P.C. with reference to the A.P. State amendment to Section 494 IPC. The point urged and decided by the Hon’ble apex Court is identical to the facts of the case on hand. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court is binding on all the courts subordinate to it in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The judicial discipline mandates that the Courts subordinate to the Hon’ble apex Court should invariably follow the principle laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in the cases cited supra, the ratio laid down in Subhash Babu case is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

Miriyala Divya and 5 Others Vs Govt of AP on 19 September, 2014

Citations: [2015 ALD CRL AP 1 115], [2014 SCC ONLINE HYD 753], [2015 ALT CRL AP 1 242]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168383354/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8d9e4b014971114384a

Index to Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to

Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors on 17 May 2010

Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020

Circus feats of the YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and Anr Vs CBI

Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January 2020

S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001

Defamation Judgments

Domestic Violence Judgments

Umesh Kumar Vs State of AP and Anr on 6 September, 2013

Miriyala Divya and 5 Others Vs Govt of AP on 19 September, 2014