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: Counterblast case

State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025

Posted on July 14 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment from this Magistrate, with legally-valid reasons and conclusions… and also directing perjury proceedings to be initiated…

From Para 26,

26. The first and foremost contention of the accused and their counsel is that FIR No: 488/2017 is barred by limitation, as such the court shall dismiss the proceedings and as per exhibit P1, the alleged last act of cruelty has taken place on 18.09.2012, so the limitation period was expired on 17.09.2015, but the report was given on 03.08.2017, therefore the proceedings are time barred u/s 468 Cr.P.C. while section 473 Cr.P.C provides an exception to bar of limitation, but its application is not automatic and there must be an explanation by the prosecution for such inordinate delay. Since the case is barred by limitation, the court is required to dismiss the proceedings. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:
A. Kamlesh Kalra v. Shilpa Kalra & Ors. Reported in 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 605 wherein it was held that “ As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court in respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A IPC, we are of the firm opinion that the same does not call for interference. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the FIR filed in this regard in 2015 was time barred, having been filed much more than three years after the separation of Manish Kalra(husband) and Shilpika Kalra (wife) and the filing of the divorce petition by the husband, both in 2009. In the facts of the case, the reasons given by the High Court for quashing the proceedings under section 498A IPC are justified and do not call for interference by this Court”.
B. Gudipati Mallikarjun Rao v. Gudiapati Saranya 2023 0 Supreme (A.P) 582 wherein it was held that “ In the circumstances, it would have to be held that the complainant, filed by the defacto complainant, is beyond the period prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C”.
C. Arun Vyas & Anr. V. Anitha Vyas 1999 0 Crl LJ 3479 wherein it was held that “ the court cannot take cognizance of an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, if the FIR is time barred, unless the delay is properly explained and condoned under Section 473 of the CrPC”.
D. Korimerla Videesha Vs. State of A.P. wherein it was held that “ According to Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, any offence under Section 3 and 4 or any dispute under Section 6 of the Act shall be filed before expiry of one year and finalized within two years from the date of filing”.

From Para 28,

28. In the case on hand the alleged demand for additional dowry was finally made on 18.9.2012 and that is the last date of alleged harassment. Even if the evidence of P.W.1 that the matter is place before the elders in 2013 has taken into consideration, the report is given after 4 years of said incident. But the report was given on 03.08.2017 i.e after 4 years of alleged harassment. So it can be safely conclude that the report is barred by limitation and the court has no power to take cognizance.

From Paras 36-37,

36. He further submitted that the conduct of P.W.1 amounts to perjury and warrants initiation of appropriate proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C in order to uphold the rule of law and protect sanctity of justice delivery system. On perusal of the record it appears that after filing the petition under section 340 Cr.P.C., my learned predecessor in the office returned the petition with some objections and the said petition is represented. But the said petition is again returned with endorsement previous objections not complied with and at present the said petition is not pending before the court. Here it is pertinent to mention that after assuming charge of this court, the said petition did not come before me and I have not given any assurance to the
counsel for the accused as mentioned in his written arguments.
37. During the cross examination P.W.1 denied that she completed her B.Tech in the year 2012. As per the evidence of D.W.1, Professor and controller of examination, JNTU Kakinada, P.W.1 completed her engineering graduation in April 2012 and on 16.10.2012 the student collected her provisional certificate from the college and as per the college rules, they cannot produce the provisional certificate of the student unless it is applied by the student. The evidence of D.W.1 clinchingly proves that P.W.1 completed her B.tech in April 2012 from JNTU. The evidence on record shows she intentionally denied that she completed her B.tech in 2012 and she has given false evidence on oath. Hence, she is certainly liable for punishment for giving false evidence. Hence, the Superintendent of this court is directed to give report before 3rd Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court against P.W.1 for giving false evidence.

From Paras 39, 41 and 42,

39. Learned counsel for the accused further contended that despite clear admissions of P.W.1 about unregistered land sale deeds dated 31.05.2010, 27.06.2011, this court refused to mark the said photocopies solely on the ground that they were not originals and this refusal is patently erroneous and it is settled law u/s 65 (c) of Indian Evidence Act, the secondary evidence is admissible where the original is lost or not in the possession of the party and a proper foundation is laid.
41. To mark the photocopies of documents, the party who intends to mark shall explain where is the original and as to why he is marking the photocopies of the documents. If the document is with the other party, first he has to give notice to the other party and even after receiving notice the other party fails to produce the document, then he can mark the photocopy. If he lost the original then also he is entitled to mark the photocopy, but in the case on hand there is no material on record to show that the accused or prosecution has given notice to other party to produce the documents and that the originals were lost. Without complying the conditions of section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, blaming this Court that the decision of the court is erroneous is not acceptable.
42. Learned counsel for the accused mentioned in his written arguments that the non production of the original unregistered sale deeds was reasonably explained during cross examination and it was put to P.W.1 that since accused no longer had access to the original land sale deeds dated. 31.05.2010 and 27.06.2011 since the property was transferred to Ch. Appala Raju and the denial of suggestion does not itself negate the reasonable explanation offered by the accused. On perusal of entire cross examination of P.W.1 it appears no such suggestion was given to P.W.1. As such the
contention of counsel for accused that they have given reasonable explanation for not filing the originals is not at all acceptable.

State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025

Index of perjury judgments is here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Cases where Perjury Proceedings were initated Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Counterblast case CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint Evidence Act Sec 65 - Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given Marking of Photocopies of Documents as Secondary Evidence Perjury - Initiate Prosecution Perjury Under 340 CrPC State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr | Leave a comment

Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024

Posted on June 27 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court hung the false 498A IPC case high and dry and reminded the High Courts of their solemn duty to stop the misuse of matrimonial laws as weapons.

From Para 8,

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants never demanded any dowry from respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 in fact used to leave the matrimonial house uninformed. In fact, on one such occasion when she left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021, appellant No.1 made a police complaint on 05.10.2021. When the police found her whereabouts, she was allegedly living with someone. Respondent No.2 after being counselled, returned to her matrimonial house. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1 wherein she admitted that she had left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 because of one Govindan, with whom she was talking over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She also stated that she would not repeat such acts in future. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that respondent No.2 again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and children behind….

From Para 18,

18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.

From Paras 19-21,

19. Further, the record reveals that respondent No.2 on 03.10.2021 left the matrimonial house leading appellant No.1 to file a police complaint on 05.10.2021. When the police officials traced her, respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 11.11.2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub Division requesting to close the complaint made by appellant No.1. In the said letter, respondent No.2 admitted that she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with appellant No.1 as she was talking to a person by name Govindan over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She further admitted that appellant No.1 was taking good care of her. She also stated that she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in 2021 itself, respondent No.2 once again left the matrimonial house leaving appellant No.1 and also her minor children.
20. Losing hope in the marriage, appellant No.1 issued a legal notice to respondent No.1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13.12.2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by appellant No.1, respondent No.2 lodged the present FIR 82 of 2022 on 01.02.2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act.
21. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No.1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with appellant No.1. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When appellant No.1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by respondent No.2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by respondent No. 2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with appellant No. 1 and his family members.

From Paras 24 and 25,

24. Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children.Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively.
25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

From Para 28,

28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.

From Para 29, (Cover drive by Supreme Court!)

29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.

Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/93461652/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6759166862941119016e1691

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2370197-dara-lakshmi-narayana-others?s=Dara%20Lakshmi%20Narayana&refine_search=&s_acts=

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/dara-lakshmi-narayana-others-v-state-of-telangana-another-2024-insc-953-498a-ipc-fir-quashed-1560806

https://www.lawtext.in/judgement.php?bid=1285

https://advamritaverma.com/legal-updates/f/498-a-ipc-has-become-the-legal-weapon?blogcategory=CPC


The Order from Telangana High Court refusing to Quash the fake 498A IPC proceedings…

Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Feb 2022

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court Counterblast case Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr Landmark Case Legal Terrorism Misuse of IPC 498A Misuse of Women-Centric Laws Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008

Posted on February 25, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court held that Counterblast cases/proceedings must be quash as per Category 7 of Bhajan Lal judgment here. It held as follows in Para 10.

10. The case at hand squarely falls within the parameters indicated in category (7) of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). The factual scenario as noted above clearly shows that the proceedings were initiated as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the appellants. Continuance of such proceedings will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Proceedings are accordingly quashed.

MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008

Citations : [2009 JCC 1 260], [2009 LW CRL 1 284], [2008 SCALE 15 60], [2008 SCALE 14 1], [2008 SCC 16 763], [2009 BC 1 193], [2009 SLT 1 576], [2009 OCR 42 139], [2008 AIOL 1268], [2009 CRIMES SC 1 144], [2008 JT 12 661], [2008 SCR 16 7], [2008 SUPREME 8 559], [2010 SCC CRI 4 425], [2009 ECRN SC 1 422], [2009 AIC SC 73 198]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/312043/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae6de4b0149711413d41

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Counterblast case CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed Landmark Case MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr | Leave a comment

State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr on 16 Jan 2002

Posted on February 25, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A 3 judge bench citing Bhajan lal judgment here, held as follows:

In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly.

Finally, it was held that, there were grounds to Quash the proceedings, by saying,

the involvement of excise officials cannot be ruled out and when they have been indicated to be witnesses, likelihood of prejudice cannot be ruled out. It was also noted that there was no “definite evidence” to show that accused nos. 1&2 were directly involved. Finally, it was observed that there was no material to hold that the accused persons had committed theft of “Letter Heads” from Karnataka Bank Ltd., and/or they had committed forgery for the purpose of cheating or have used genuine forged documents or had cheated the government. Finally, it was observed that there was no evidence to infer common intention to commit such offences.

State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr on 16 Jan 2002

Citations : [2002 SCC 3 89], [2002 SCALE 1 176], [2002 AIR SC 671], [2002 SCR 1 275], [2002 CRLJ SC 998], [2002 SCC CRI 539], [2002 UJ SC 1 362], [2002 AIR SC 286], [2002 SUPREME 1 192], [2002 ACR SC 1 605], [2002 ALD CRI 1 412], [2002 SCSUPPL CHN 2 21], [2002 UC 1 294], [2002 AIR SCW 286], [2002 JT SC 1 213]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1014506/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adc4e4b0149711412362

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Counterblast case Landmark Case Quash Order is Set Aside R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab Reportable Judgement or Order State of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Supreme Court and High Court Judgments to cite in Discharge (u/s 227 or 239) or Quash petition (u/s 482)

Posted on April 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list the Supreme Court of India judgments applicable to various legal grounds to go for Discharge u/s 227 or 239 or 245 and Quash u/s 482.

Included few High Court judgments too for reference. Read the individual judgments to find the operative text of the respective judgments.

There are quite a few legal grounds on the basis of which a case can be discharged at Magistrate/Sessions Court or Quashed (High Court and Supreme Court).

Note1: Read State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004 to understand that during Quash proceedings at High Court, Evidence of Sterling/Unimpeachable Quality from Defence/Accused can be adduced to dismantle the case of Prosecution at Trial Court.)

Note2: Second 482 CrPC petition is maintainable as per Landmark judgment in ‘Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors on 08 Oct 1974‘.

Note3: A Petition under section 482 CrPC is maintainable even when a Revision is available under 397/401 CrPC says, ‘Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008‘.

Note4: Read recent landmark decision of a Full bench of the Apex Court on when to/not Quash a FIR/case in ‘Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors‘ [2021 SCC ONLINE SC 315]

Note: If you want to read this thread from beginning, go here.

No Jurisdiction Judgments

  1. Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999 (1999) 8 SCC 728
  2. Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors Vs Inspector Of Police, Chennai & Anr on 17 August, 2004
  3. Manish Ratan And Others Vs State Of M.P And Another on 01 Nov 2006
  4. Sonu and others Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another on 10 October, 2007
  5. Bhura Ram And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 2 April, 2008
  6. Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012 (Includes delay in complaint, vague allegations)
  7. Sivangala Thandi Deepak & Others Vs The State of A.P. on 11 July 2014
  8. Amarendu Jyoti And Others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 4 Aug, 2014
  9. Sudhir Mansinghka Vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 August, 2015
  10. Amit Kumar Yadav And Others vs State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2015 (AP High Court judgment; Includes delay in complaint, perjury)
  11. G.Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017
  12. Manoj Vishwakarma & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 12 September, 2017
  13. Vishnu Mohan Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017
  14. Yadwinder Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018
  15. Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019 (Bad law: No territorial Jurisdiction is applicable in 498A IPC cases); Interestingly, no other new/overruling judgment till date.

 

Vague and General and omnibus Allegations

  1. MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997 (Complaint Case)
  2. Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998 (Complaint Case)
  3. B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003 (High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable cases also not listed under CrPC 320)
  4. Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009
  5. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
  6. Joseph Salvaraj A Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 4 Jul 2011 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  7. Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012 (Scenarios when a criminal proceeding can be quashed)
  8. Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs. Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and others on 25 September, 2012
  9. Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014
  10. Sandeep Singh Bais Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2017
  11. Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018 [Chattisgarh HC: DV on relatives quashed who do not have shared household]
  12. Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 (AP High Court)
  13. Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019 (Telangana High Court: No evidence of Dowry Transaction)
  14. Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (Conviction of 498A IPC set aside due to settlement; Cites BS Joshi caselaw)
  15. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (498A IPC quashed due to General and Omnibus allegations)
  16. Krishnanand Mishra and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand on 09 Aug 2023 [Jharkhand HC: Misuse of Section 498A IPC; General and Omnibus allegations]
  17. Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023 [Package of 5 cases laid on parents of husband]
  18. Abhishek Gour Vs State of MP on 31 Aug 2023 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  19. Rakesh Rajput and Anr Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Oct 2023 [Jharkhand HC: Misuse of Section 498A IPC; General and Omnibus allegations]
  20. Mamta Shailesh Chandra Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors on 29 Jan 2024 [SC: Quash can be done even after charge sheet is filed by Police]
  21. Mainoddin Vs State of Karnataka on 02 Feb 2024 [Relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar]
  22. Mamida Anil Kumar Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Feb 2024 [Relying on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar, Apex Court trashed the nonsensical decision of AP High Court]
  23. Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024 [DHC: Relied on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar]
  24. Mathi Vijaya Lakshmi and Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 03 May 2024 [TelHC: Relied on Category 1 of Bhajan lal and Preethi Gupta]
  25. CB Prakash and Anr Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 04 Jun 2024 [KarHC: Relied on Kahkashan Kausar]
  26. Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Anr Vs State of Gujarat and Ors on 28 Aug 2024 [SC: FIR can be quashed even after filing of CS]
  27. Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024 [SC: Counterblast case]
  28. Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025 [Making generic and ambiguous allegations is abuse of process of law]

 

Allegations do not attract provisions of Sections in FIR

  1. R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
  2. Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane on 19 March, 1975
  3. State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489 [Inadequate material to sustain the charge of prosecution]
  4. Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18
  5. State Of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal on 21 November, 1990 [A set of subsequent case laws arose from this landmark judgment]
  6. Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2)
  7. V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 AIR 1994 SC 710
  8. State of H.P.V Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219
  9. Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration and Anr on 31 July 1996
  10. Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121
  11. Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414
  12. Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078
  13. Savitri Devi Vs Ramesh Chand And Ors. on 19 May, 2003 (Delhi High Court)
  14. Manju Ram Kalita vs State Of Assam on 29 May, 2009 (Conviction under IPC 498A set aside)
  15. Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
  16. U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009 (Concubine is not a relative of husband)
  17. Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009 [Allegations do not attract 498A IPC ingredients]
  18. Vijeta Gajra Vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2010
  19. Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010 [SC: Family members who are residing away from accused No.1 cannot be roped into the case]
  20. Sunita Jha Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 September, 2010
  21. S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
  22. Asha Devi & Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar & Anr. on 24 July, 2012
  23. Banti And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 31 August, 2012
  24. Movva Raja Ram Vs State Of A.P. on 18 June, 2013
  25. State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh on 2 July, 2014
  26. Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014 (Concubine is not a relative of husband; IPC 494 is not applicable on concubine)
  27. Deepika Tiwary Vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2015
  28. Gayathri Kunjithaya Vs State Of Kerala On 19 January 2015
  29. Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Overruled Appasaheb and Vipin Jaiswal]
  30. Dr. Rajneesh Satyadev Rajpurohit Vs Magistrate No.3 on 16 April, 2015
  31. Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs The State Of A.P. on 1 June, 2016
  32. Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017 [Allegations do not attract 498A and 406 IPC ingredients]
  33. Subramani Vs The Sub-Inspector Of Police on 31 October, 2017 (Marriage should be there, to apply IPC 498A)
  34. K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018
  35. K. Subba Rao Vs The State Of Telangana on 21 August, 2018
  36. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020 [allegations do not attract the provision of IPC 306; Separate FIRs Filed At Different Jurisdictions And In Same Incident Under Same Offence NOT allowed]
  37. Samad Habib Mithani and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 25 Jul 2024 [relying on R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab, Family members cannot be roped into the case]
  38. Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024 [relying on R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab, Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Bhajan Lal, quashed proceedings; 211 IPC also suggested]
  39. Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024 [MPHC:absence of specific date and time when the complainant-wife was subjected to the demand of dowry is sufficient to quash Dowry demand allegation]

 

Maliciously Instituted/ Counterblast cases/ Delay Not explained Cases

  1. State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr on 16 Jan 2002 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  2. Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007 [Time-barred u/s 468]
  3. Priya Vrat Singh & Ors Vs Shyam Ji Sahai on 5 August, 2008
  4. State Of A.P Vs M. Madhusudhan Rao on 24 October, 2008
  5. MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  6. Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009
  7. Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012 [Various liberal principles in condoning delays under Sec 5 of Limitation Act; Time limitation applies to Govt instrumentality-appellant]
  8. Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013 [SC: guidelines to/not to quash/discharge]
  9. Vineet Kumar And Ors Vs State Of UP & Anr on 31 March, 2017
  10. State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017
  11. Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018
  12. Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020 [APHC: Counterblast case to Husband’s divorce case]
  13. Abhishek Singh Vs State of M.P. on 26 Dec 2022 [MPHC: 498A IPC covers invalid marriages also]
  14. Swapan Kumar Das Vs State of West Bengal on 21 Aug 2023 [CalHC: proceeding are instituted only to fulfil personal grudge; Category 1 of Bhajan lal]
  15. Achin Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Anr on 03 May 2024 [Category 7 of Bhajan lal; Counterblast case]
  16. Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024 [SC: FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time]
  17. Musin Babulal Thengade and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 29 Jan 2025 [BomHC: Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite period]

 

Material evidence required that supports allegations

  1. R.P. Kapur Vs State of Punjab 25 March, 1960
  2. Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865
  3. Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828
  4. CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005
  5. Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006 [there prima facie appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials]
  6. Ran Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, Case no. appeal (Crl) 222 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3089 of 2006
  7. M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 3146
  8. Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763 [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
  9. Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2314
  10. Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 3050
  11. Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961] [Overruled in Rajinder Singh here]
  12. Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Part-paid dowry is in Connection with Marriage]
  13. M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Demand of Property has to be in connection with marriage, as per Sec 2 of DP Act 1961]

 

Approaching Court with unclean hands

  1. All Perjury judgments can be gainfully utilized. They are here.

 

498A IPC not maintainable due to null and void marriage/Earlier Divorce

  1. Shivcharan Lal Verma and Anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 19 Feb 2002 [SC]
  2. Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam And Others on 8 Jan 2004 [SC: Held as per incuriam]
  3. Mohit Gupta and Ors vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 16 Oct 2006 [DelHC]
  4. Mohammad Miyan and Ors Vs State of UP on 21 Aug 2018 [SC: Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  5. Kanchanapally Srinivas Vs State of Telangana on 26 Apr 2021 [TSHC: Relying on Mohammad Miyan, Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  6. Kode Narasimha Kumar and Ors Vs State of AP on 10 Nov 2022 [APHC: Relying on Mohammad Miyan, Earlier divorced hence offences of IPC 498A and Dowry Prohibition Act is not tenable/maintainable]
  7. P Sivakumar and 2 Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 09 Feb 2023 [SC]
  8. Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023 [KarHC]
  9. M.Sreenivasulu and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 15 May 2024 [APHC]

 

Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C.

  1. All discharge judgments u/s 227 CrPC can be found here.

 

Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C.

  1. All discharge judgments u/s 239 CrPC can be found here.

 

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Counterblast case CrPC 227 - Discharged CrPC 239 - Discharged CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed IPC 494 - Not Made Out Against Woman IPC 498a - Not Made Out Is Not Relative Of Husband Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass No Material To Sustain Charge No Territorial Jurisdiction Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

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
erbmjha BALA @erbmjha ·
14 Jul

Abhishek Manu Singhvi is defending the Emergency by highlighting its benefits.

Just imagine the level of brain rot...

Reply on Twitter 1944619816477954274 Retweet on Twitter 1944619816477954274 1018 Like on Twitter 1944619816477954274 3023 X 1944619816477954274
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
papitrumpo il Donaldo Trumpo @papitrumpo ·
14 Jul

THAT EXPLAINS IT!!!😂😂😂

Reply on Twitter 1944897330622193903 Retweet on Twitter 1944897330622193903 2165 Like on Twitter 1944897330622193903 8203 X 1944897330622193903
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
14 Jul

చాలా వివరంగా అమరావతి పనులు గురించి చెప్పారు...👏

@YSRCParty మీలాంటి వారి కోసమే ఈ వీడియో... చిల్లర వెధవలందరికీ ఈ వీడియో పంపించండి 💪
#Amaravathi
#Amaravati
#Andhrapradesh
#IdhiManchiPrabhutvam

Reply on Twitter 1944599370617495946 Retweet on Twitter 1944599370617495946 32 Like on Twitter 1944599370617495946 159 X 1944599370617495946
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
indiantechguide Indian Tech & Infra @indiantechguide ·
14 Jul

🚨 India has welcomed 36 Indian-origin scientists to do R&D in India under Vaibhav scheme. (GoI)

Reply on Twitter 1944721734935929034 Retweet on Twitter 1944721734935929034 1680 Like on Twitter 1944721734935929034 16344 X 1944721734935929034
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ekta Kapur Vs Kunal Kapur on 21 May 2025 July 15, 2025
  • Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020 July 14, 2025
  • Evidence Act Sec 65 – Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given July 14, 2025
  • State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025 July 14, 2025
  • Dowry Prohibition Officers of Andhra Pradesh working? July 13, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (3,032 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,470 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (2,432 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,837 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,720 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,420 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,203 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (1,051 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (993 views)
  • Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 (863 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (405)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (376)Landmark Case (370)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (296)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (275)Work-In-Progress Article (216)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (93)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (61)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (44)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (719)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (320)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (180)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (107)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (43)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (36)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • SUBHASH KUMAR BANSAL on Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • July 2025 (6)
  • 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

  • NRT (Tokyo) on 2025-07-24 July 24, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 24, 17:00 - 21:00 UTCJul 16, 02:26 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in NRT (Tokyo) datacenter on 2025-07-24 between 17:00 and 21:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • MXP (Milan) on 2025-07-23 July 23, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 23, 01:00 - 04:00 UTCJul 17, 10:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MXP (Milan) datacenter on 2025-07-23 between 01:00 and 04:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • BCN (Barcelona) on 2025-07-22 July 22, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 22, 01:00 - 04:00 UTCJul 10, 15:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BCN (Barcelona) datacenter on 2025-07-22 between 01:00 and 04:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 2a00:1450:4864:20::147 | SD July 16, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 447 | First: 2021-08-06 | Last: 2025-07-16
  • 5.183.103.196 | S July 16, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 9 | First: 2025-07-10 | Last: 2025-07-16
  • 92.246.141.100 | S July 16, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4 | First: 2025-07-16 | Last: 2025-07-16
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1616 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel