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: CrPC 397/399 – Revision

Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr on 30 Jun 2014

Posted on June 8 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 7,

7. The right of hearing given to accused under Section 401 clause (2) of Criminal Procedure Code was elaborately dealt with by this Court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia case (supra).
8. In the present case challenge is laid to order dated 4.3.2009 at the instance of the complainant in the revision petition before the High Court and by virtue of Section 401(2) of the Code, the accused mentioned in the First Information Report get the right of hearing before the revisional court although the impugned order therein was passed without their participation. The appellant who is an accused person cannot be deprived of hearing on the face of the express provision contained in Section 401(2) of the Code and on this ground, the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted.

Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr on 30 Jun 2014
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr CrPC 203 - Dismissal of complaint CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 399 - Sessions Judge's powers of revision CrPC 401 - High Court's Powers of revision Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Devi Prasanna Nayak Vs Deepak Malviya on 24 Nov 2021

Posted on June 23, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Sessions Judge of Saket Court at Delhi held as follows,

From Para 14,

14. The issue that in appropriate cases, costs can also be imposed while dismissing revision petition is no longer res integra. Reliance can be placed upon judgments of our own Hon’ble High Court in the matter of Vijay Ghai v. State Crl. M. C. No. 3669/2011 decided on 01.11.2013 and M/s Miracle Infoweb Pvt. Ltd. v. State, Crl. M. C. No. 4529/2013 decided on 07.11.2013. To illustrate, observations of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi v. NCT of Delhi & Anr , Crl. M.C No. 4504/2013 and Crl. M. A No. 16125/2013 decided on 27.11.2013 while imposing costs in a criminal revision can be reproduced here as under:
“…22. Imposition of Costs- 22.1 Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. The cost should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigants, and the harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigations and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through Court. The costs imposed by the Courts must be the real costs equal to the deprivation suffered by the rightful person and also considering how long they have compelled the other side to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. In appropriate cases, the Courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. The parties raise fanciful claims and contests because the Courts are reluctant to order prosecution. The relevant judgments in support of this preposition are as under:-
“22.2 In Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, the Supreme Court has held that the Courts have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and have to be realistic in imposing the costs. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:-
“52. …C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial
proceedings…
***
54. While imposing costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the Defendants or the Respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges
towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc.
55. The other factor which should not be forgotten while imposing costs is for how long the Defendants or Respondents were compelled to contest and defend the litigation in various courts. The Appellants in the instant case have harassed the Respondents to the hilt for four decades in a totally frivolous and dishonest litigation in various courts. The Appellants have also wasted judicial time of the various courts for the last 40 years.
56. On consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned impugned order/judgment. These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation.”
22.3 In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, (2012) 5 SCC 370, the Supreme Court held that heavy costs and prosecution should be ordered in cases of false claims and defences as under:-
“82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249, aptly observed at p. 266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court’s otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pp. 267-68, para 58 that imposition of
actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial
proceedings.” (Emphasis supplied)”
22.4 In Padmawati v. Harijan Sewak Sangh, 154 (2008) DLT 411, this Court imposed costs of Rs.15.1 lakhs and noted as under:
“6. The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage professionals to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider that in such cases where Court finds that using the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has perpetuated an illegal possession, the Court must impose costs on such litigants which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation and prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through the Courts. One of the aim of every judicial system has to be to discourage unjust enrichment using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts must in all cases should be the real costs
equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful person.
***
9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for over-flowing of court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts…” (Emphasis supplied)”

Devi Prasanna Nayak Vs Deepak Malviya on 24 Nov 2021
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 397 - Calling for records to exercise powers of revision CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 397/399 - Revision Dismissed Devi Prasanna Nayak Vs Deepak Malviya Dismissed with Costs | Leave a comment

Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 17 Mar 2018

Posted on July 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A District Court in Delhi passed this detailed Judgment, relying on earlier Madras HC judgment here.

From Para 7,

At this juncture, reference may be made to Saleem P.A. etc. v. State reported as (1994) 2 LW (Crl.) 402, which is relevant for the present purpose. Paragraph 24 thereof is reproduced as under:
“ 24. In view of the discussion as above, the following positions emerge:
1. Issuance of a warrant of arrest by a Court under the Code shall remain in force beyond the date fixed for its return, until it is cancelled or executed.
2. Since the court, which issued the warrant has the power to cancel it, it is but necessary for the person against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued to approach the said Court, by his personal appearance, for its cancellation, which issued it.
3. Once a person accused of an offence against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued makes his personal appearance, with a petition for its cancellation, before the Court, which issued it, it behaves on its part not to take him into custody and send him to prison immediately after his appearance, but to pass an order on such petition, forthwith, without brooking any sort of a delay and if the order so passed ends in his favour, he
shall be bound over to appear before court on an earliest date fixed for hearing on trial, as the case may be, or otherwise, he could be taken into custody forthwith and sent to prison, with a direction to the prison authorities for his production before court on the earliest date fixed for such hearing or trial is over, so as to enable it to proceed, with ease and grace, and without any obstruction whatever, thereby not affecting in the least his right to speedy trial, a goal to be achieved, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, or on his application, being presented, release him on bail, on his executing a bond for a specified sum, with sufficient number of sureties, for such sum to secure his appearance on the dates fixed for hearing or trial, as the case may be.
4. However, a person aggrieved by an order of refusal of the cancellation by a Magistrate, who issued the same, can further agitate the same, if he so desires, by filing a revision, either under Section 397 or 401 of the Code, and then resort to invoke the inherent power of this court under Section 482 of the Code, if grounds for resortment to such a course existed (emphasis supplied).”
In the light of above discussion, it is clear that the present revision petition is maintainable.

Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 17 Mar 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108983018/


NBW judgments here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 397(2) - Revision Not Exercised in Any Interlocutory Order CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 399 - Sessions Judge's powers of revision Dismissal of NBW Cancellation is not Interlocutory so Revision is Maintainable Issue of Non-Bailable Warrant Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) P.A.Saleem Vs State of Madras Remedy when Non-Bailable Warrant Not Recalled | Leave a comment

P.A.Saleem Vs State of Madras on 13 Jul 1994

Posted on July 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Madras High Court held that, Dismissal of NBW Cancellation is not Interlocutory so Revision is Maintainable u/s 397 CrPC.

(24) In view of the discussions as above, the following positions emerge:
(1) issuance of a warrant of arrest by a court under this code shall remain in force beyond the date fixed for its return, until it is cancelled or executed.
(2) since the court, which issued the warrant has the power to cancel it, it is but necessary for the person against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued to approach the said court, by his personal appearance, for its cancellation, which issued it.
(3) once a person of an offence against whom a warrant of arrest had been makes his personal appearance, with a petition for its cancellation, before the court, which issued it, it behoves on its part not to take him into custody and send him to prison immediately after his appearance; but to pass an order on such petition, forthwith, without borrowing any sort of a delay and if the order so passed ends in his favour, he shall be bound over to appear before court on an earliest date fixed for hearing or trial, as the case may as, or otherwise, he could be taken into custody forthwith and sent to prison, with a direction to the prison authorities for his production before court on the earliest date fixed for such hearing or trial and on such other dates till the trial is over, so as to enable it to proceed, with ease and grace, and without any obstruction whatever, thereby not affecting in the least his right to speedy trial, a goal to be achieved, as enshrined under article 21 of the constitution; or on his application, being presented, release him on bail, or his executing a bond for a specified sum, with sufficient number of sureties, for such sum to secure his appearance on the dates fixed for hearing or trial, as the case may be.
(4) however, a person, aggrieved by an order of refusal of the cancellation by a magistrate, who issued the same, can further agitate the same, if he so desires, by filing a revision, either under section 397 or 401 of the code, and then resort to invoke the inherent power of this court under section 482 of the code, if grounds for resortment to such a course existed; and
(5) section 482 of the code is not at all attracted for simpliciter tre – call of a warrant; but, on the other hand, it is getting attracted for execution of a warrant, by issuance of a direction to a police officer or for that matter, any other person to whom it is issued, for its immediate compliance.

P.A.Saleem Vs State of Madras on 13 Jul 1994

Citations : [1994 CRIMES 3 991]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e669e9607dba6b53435671


NBW judgments here.

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 397(2) - Revision Not Exercised in Any Interlocutory Order CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 399 - Sessions Judge's powers of revision Dismissal of NBW Cancellation is not Interlocutory so Revision is Maintainable Issue of Non-Bailable Warrant Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced P.A.Saleem Vs State of Madras Remedy when Non-Bailable Warrant Not Recalled | Leave a comment

Kamlesh Kumar Vs Girish Kapoor and Anr on 12 Apr 1984

Posted on December 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

One of the earliest judgments on Stay proceedings in a Revision at Sessions Court.

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. The above order was passed in revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge. Obviously that jurisdiction was exercised Under Section 397, Cr.P.C. Under its provisions the Sessions Judge could pass an interlocutory order by directing “that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended….” It is, therefore, clear that in a revision, the Sessions Judge could, during the pendency of the revision, suspend either sentence or order against which the revision has been filed. In the present case there is no question of any sentence. There was only the order in question against which revision was filed. At best the said order could only be suspended during the pendency of the revision.

7. The question of suspending the order would only arise if it was still to be executed. If the order had already come into operation, there remained nothing to be suspended. In the present case it is undisputed fact that in pursuance of the order of the learned Magistrate, applicant Kamlesh Kumar had already executed the necessary bonds on the same date and had taken delivery of the said print of the film ‘Naseeb’. Accordingly there remained nothing which could be suspended.


Casemine Version:

Kamlesh Kumar Vs Girish Kapoor and Anr on 12 Apr 1984

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1179659/

https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/473801/kamlesh-kumar-vs-girish-kapoor-anr

Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 397(1) - Stay on Lower Court Proceedings in Revision CrPC 397/399 - Revision Kamlesh Kumar Vs Girish Kapoor and Anr Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

All Reliefs from Judiciary

Posted on August 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Awareness of law involved in the case laid against you is crucial to handle and take charge of your case yourself. The following are some of the general reliefs one can invoke in Andhra Pradesh for sure. They may apply to other states also. List of High Courts is here.


BNSS is available here.


Note: If you need some reliefs from Police High-handedness, go here.


Always remember Article 21 of Constitution of India

Article 21 is what powers Fair treatment of accused during criminal trials. It provides for fair investigation, Fair trial and Fair Judgment. Any violation of Article 21 gives you liberty to invoke Article 226 at High Court and Article 32 at Supreme Court to seek Writ Reliefs. Case laws are available in chronological order here.

It reads as follows:

21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.


Engagement of Advocates

As per Section 32 of Advocates Act 1961, you can appear in your own case.

If a victim wants to engage a private advocate to prosecute their case, yes you can, but only to assist the PP. The sections to back this aspect are to read

  1. Sec 225 CrPC
  2. Proviso to Sec 24(8) CrPC
  3. Sec 301 CrPC
  4. and finally Sec 302 CrPC. In that Order.

Hope this helps clarify the legal position to those of us who filed/intend to file Criminal cases against OP. This is explained in this case law here. The case law is available on my site here.


Engagement of a third-party other than Advocates

As per again Section 32 of Advocates Act 1961, you can appear in some one else’s case, subject to certain conditions.

  1. You must be a non-advocate
  2. You must have some relationship due to which the accused/defendant trusts you
  3. You may be permitted by a Court, an authority or any person
  4. You may be permitted to appear in any particular case; as a corollary, may not be permitted in all cases or for all clients
  5. Prior Court permission is necessary (via a Petition; sample here)

This is laid out by the Legendary Jurist Sri V.R. Krishna Iyer in this celebrated case law here.


Terminating the services of Advocates

You have complete freedom to terminate the services of your Advocate and engage another one. Just be cautiously about the local procedures which can differ from High Court to High Court. It means, in some High Courts, there is no need of any No-Objection-Certification (NOC) from your current Advocate before you engage another. Like in Karnataka. But not so in Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is unwritten rule to obtain NOC so as to avoid unpleasant situations/conversations/interactions between you and your advocates (or between the earlier and current Advocates). Nevertheless Supreme Court has laid down a landmark case law here. Use it judiciously. Also take a look at other similar case laws here.


First Appearance in Court

Once the case documents are sent to Court via a Charge sheet or Closure report as mandated u/s 173 CrPC, Court Filing Section staff gives is a case number and list it in the causelist (daily timetable of work) before a competent Magistrate/ Judge.

On your first appearance day in the Court, Court staff will ask questions to identify you and your purpose of attending the Court. Next question is if you have engaged an advocate or need time for this purpose. Finally, case will be adjourned to a future date and each accused person will be given a set of copy of the above case documents which were submitted into Court by Police as mandated u/s 207 CrPC.

And once an Anticipatory Bail is granted, it protected the grantee/accused until the end of trial and there is no need to obtain Regular Bail, after Charge sheet is filed by Police into the Court. Case law here.


Exemption from Personal Appearance in Court

If you do not want to appear even on first appearance for certain obvious and unavoidable reasons, take help from this case law here and here and You can seek exemption for self or other accused from appearing in the Court in a case u/s 205 CrPC of CrPC 205. Vital Case laws are available here. For single-day relief, see Absent Petition below.


Provision u/s 173 CrPC to demand documents from IO to be submitted to Court and to obtain a copy of prosecution documents

Section 173(7) reads as follows:

(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).

How to use it:

If you are good terms with IO, then he/she may find it convenient to furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents. Be courteous to IO to make use of this.

Note: Otherwise, as mentioned above, Court will anyways, provide a copy of the entire bunch of prosecution documents to each accused on first appearance.

Section 173(6) reads as follows:

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

How to use it:

If you have submitted any documents/made a statement that IO records during inquiry (supposedly u/s 41A CrPC), and such documents are missing in the bunch of documents procured via above section or u/s 207 CrPC, then submit to the Court that such left-out/excluded documents be brought on record of Court. The case law is here.

Even if such seeking of documents is objected to for any legal reason, one can seek for inspection of such documents as held in here.


Protest Petition

After Police file a final report ( be it a Charge sheet or a Closure report), Court notifies the informant/complainant about the same and invites any objections to the same. The informant/complainant can file a protest petition into the Court and object to section/accused removal from Charge sheet or Closure report itself can be objected to. Couple of Landmark judgments are here.


Limited Authority of Registry or Filing Section/Office attached to a Court

A Registry attached to a High Court or a Filing Section attached to a District/Magistrate Court has a limited set of functions on the administration of Justice and authority and they certainly can not exercise judicial function as held by Supreme Court here. Use this judgment, as appropriate, to ensure Court staff perform only their duties and nothing beyond that.


Time-bound disposal provisions in Various Enactments

Check this page here for various provision available in the gender-biased laws which specify time limits for disposal of cases.


Use of Interrogatories in Civil and Criminal cases

Carefully designed Interrogatories are a tool to extract helpful information from OP. Read more info here.

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Order XI – Discovery and Inspection (read with Sec 30) has the necessary Rules to be following to file an application for delivery of interrogatories in a Civil case like DVC, HMA24 etc.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 287 provides a similar provision in Criminal cases in which a commission is issued.

Case laws here.


Usage of Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.)

If you are going to fight your case on your own as Party-in-person, make good use of Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.), which allows you to represent your co-accused, most probably, your parents or family members.

Same Rules apply to folks in Telangana State too. Some case laws here.


Absent Petition

You can seek exemption for self or other accused from appearing in the Court on a particular singular date in a case u/s 317 CrPC.

You can send your duly-filled, stamped and signed absent petitions to the Office of Superintendent of the Court where your case is going on, well in advance, with a cover letter to place your Absent petition on the Bench.


Non-bailable Warrants (NBWs) for arrest

It is highly possible that trial courts may issue NBWs at the drop of the hat. Despite having bail for the said accused already. So to overcome this issue, once has to file a Recall petition seeking recall of the NBW. Use these judgments here, to tide over this menace.

The general procedure is issue summons first, then bailable warrants and finally non-bailable warrants for arrest of accused.

In case NBWs are issued and petition for recall of the same (u/s 70(2) CrPC) are refused/dismissed, you can file Revision at the Appellate Court (u/s 397 CrPC). Use these judgments here


Speedy Trial

Our right to Fair and Speedy Trial arises from Article 21 (read with Article 227) . The case laws are here. A landmark judgment is here which also refers to section 483 CrPC. Article 227 also is a remedy.


Arrest unnecessary adjournments

Tareeq pe tareeq epidemic can easily be addressed taking help u/s 309(2) CrPC which is amended by Act 5 of 2009, s. 21 (w.e.f. 1-11-2010). Read the Landmark judgment which insisted on the importance, utility and urgent need of Trial/Session Courts to use the 4th Proviso to this sub-section here (2013). A 2017 reportable decision here. Also Read the other judgments here (included AP HC case law).

Also if prosecution fails to bring the witnesses to Court for examination, Courts can deny granting adjournments as held here.

Also if prosecution or defence try to delay Cross-examination of a witness, Courts can at max defer to 3 days as held here and can also levy heavy fines as held in this tagline here.

It is held by the Apex Court here that, Chief Examination & Cross-Examination Of Witness Must Be Recorded On The Same Day Or Following Day. Another similar case law here.


Recording of Prosecution Evidence

This is a part of the broader Examination Stage, wherein Prosecution brings forward all their Witnesses and Evidences necessary to convict the accused persons. This is mandated u/s 273 CrPC. While the rule says, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, there is one exception to it, that is, when the attendance of accused is dispensed with (under any of sections 205 or 317), then the prosecution evidence can be recorded by the Court, in the absence of the accused, but in the presence of the pleader of the accused. And such evidence of prosecution may be recorded, when the accused joins the proceedings, virtually through video conferencing. Supporting case law here.


Time-barred Litigation

Time-barred litigation should be attacked using the provision u/s 468 of CrPC.


Register a complaint against Public Servant (No sanction from Government required!!!)

If any Public servant (read as Judge, Magistrate or Police) does something to violate their duty as prescribed u/s 197 CrPC, they are liable for criminal prosecution u/s 166A IPC. Read full details here. Karnataka High Court clearly explains this here.


Discharge Petition

If the prosecution documents do not have any basis to connect you to the allegation listed in Charge sheet by Police, this is one opportunity to find the grounds and file a Discharge Petition and come out the case. Check out the landmark case laws here. Especially, B S Neelakanta judgment.


Case Calendar

The common frustration defence has with Prosecution in a false case is, absconding of the prosecution witnesses from Cross-examination. For obvious reasons, false case filers generally, do not appear for Cross examination. To tackle such scenarios, you can use the Supreme Court judgment to force the Trial judge to come up with case calendar for the entire case, which is available here.


Only 6 months Stay on Proceedings

It is common knowledge that one party goes to higher courts seeking to stay proceedings in lower court. Supreme Court has restricting this behavior of endless stay on proceedings which is impacting the disposal of cases in timely manner in this judgment here.


During Cross examination of Lying witnesses

Make good use of this set of legal weapons from Indian Evidence Act 1872.

 

59. Proof of facts by oral evidence. –– All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence.

60. Oral evidence must be direct. –– Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say ––
if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable.
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.

61. Proof of contents of documents. –– The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.

101. Burden of proof. –– Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. –– When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

 

132. Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate. –– A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind:
Proviso. –– Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer.

138. Order of examinations. –– Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. A landmark judgment is available here.

146. Questions lawful in cross-examination. –– When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend––
(1) to test his veracity,
(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
(3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him, or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture:
Provided that in a prosecution for an offence under section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is an issue, it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross-examination of the victim as to the general immoral character, or previous sexual experience, of such victim with any person for proving such consent or the quality of consent.

155. Impeaching credit of witness. –– The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him: ––
(1) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(2) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;
Explanation. –– A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.

159. Refreshing memory. –– A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory.
The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct.
When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory. –– Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document:
Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original. An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.

160. Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in section 159. ––A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 159, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document.


Objections raised by Prosecution or Court during the Examination/Evidence Stage:

It is possible that either the Prosecution or the Court may raise objections to the questions put to the Prosecution witnesses during Cross Examination stage. Use this judgment here to get the questions and deposition recorded properly.


Prosecution witnesses absent for the Examination/Evidence Stage:

Cr.P.C. (u/s 284 and 285 onwards) provides for issuing commissions which will go to the place where the prosecution witness resides and record the deposition. Use this sample here to tighten the screws of the lying (and absenting) complainant.


Arguments

Then comes the crucial stage of Arguments. You can submit oral arguments before the Court and also file written arguments which must be made part of the case record/bundle. This is covered under section 314 of Cr.P.C. and the Trial Courts must not refuse them to be brought on record of case. Check these cases here.


Perjury is nearby

Let the OP lie in Court. Just ensure you have the truth (hint: evidences) with you. Perjury will be awaiting just in case an illegal order gets to be passed. Here are the Case laws.


Contempt Jurisdiction to the rescue

If no order gets passed due to Perjury, let the Contempt jurisdiction take care of falsifications, material concealments, forgeries etc. Again do let the OP lie and cheat, which comes to them naturally. You can get punishment and fine levied upon the OP under the following provisions. Few case here.

  1. Article 129 of the Constitution of India (At Supreme Court)
  2. Article 142 of the Constitution of India (At Supreme Court)
  3. Article 215 of the Constitution of India (At High Courts)
  4. Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (here is the Act)

Compensation

 


Delay in Pronouncing Judgments

Sometimes, Courts take enormous amount of time in pronouncing the Judgments after reserving the same. Supreme Court gave directions that can be used by us. One such landmark judgment is here. This tag here has some more judgments.


Obtaining copy of the Judgment/Order for free

Order passed under

  • Section 204(3) CrPC: Summon (in a summons-case) or Warrant (in a warrants-case) issued u/s 204(1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (Also obtain the list of prosecution witnesses !!)
  • Section 248(1) CrPC: Acquittal Order after Trail
  • Section 249 CrPC: Discharge from a non-cognizable or a compoundable case, if the complainant is absent
  • Section 252 CrPC: Conviction Order in case of guilty plea.
  • Section 256 CrPC: Acquittal Order in case of non-appearance or death of complainant
  • Section 257 CrPC: Acquittal Order in case of withdrawal of complaint
  • Section 258 CrPC: Acquittal or Discharge of an accused due to stoppage of proceedings by Magistrate
  • Section 24 of PWDV Act 2005: Court to give copies of order free of cost.

Certified copies of Docket Order

If you want to obtain certified copies of the docket order in any case, no Court can deny because the docket order is very much part of Court record. If the Copy or/and Filing sections rerutn your copy application (CA) by giving an objection like, a permission petition has to be filed, take help from this case laws here.


Reasoned Orders/Judgments

The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is the quality of reasons given against each issue/charge framed at the beginning of the decision. This decision here is just one which emphasizes the same.


Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India

Check out this page here.

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in LLB Study Material | Tagged All Reliefs from Judiciary Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court Costs For Contempt Of Court CPC Order 11 - Discovery and Inspection Criminal Rules of Practice Rule 37 - One Accused May Be Permitted To Represent Other CrPC 164 - Recording of Confessions and Statements CrPC 173 - Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation CrPC 173(5) - Prosecution Can Produce Additional Documents CrPC 197 - Prosecution of Judges and public servants CrPC 205 – Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused CrPC 207 - Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents CrPC 239 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 273 - Evidence to be taken in presence of accused CrPC 284 - When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued CrPC 285 - Commission to whom to be issued CrPC 287 - Parties may examine witnesses CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings CrPC 314 - Oral arguments and memorandum of arguments CrPC 317 - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation CrPC 483 - Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates CrPC 73 - Warrant may be directed to any person Fine For Contempt Of Court Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court Interrogatories IPC 166A - Public servant disobeying direction under law Perjury Under 340 CrPC Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India Work-In-Progress Article | 4 Comments

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

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and Anr Vs CBI Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 397/401 - Revision Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Girdharilal Sapuru And Ors on 11 February 1981

Posted on February 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Landmark judgment, Supreme Court had held that,

5. It, however, appears that the respondents contended that the revision petition was barred by limitation. Even this contention is founded on a very technical ground that even though the revision petition was filed very much in time the requisite power of attorney of the learned advocate on behalf of the petition was not legally complete and when it was re-submitted the limitation had expired. Without going into the nicety of this too technical contention, we may notice that Section 397 of the CrPC enables the High Court to exercise power of revision suo motu and when the attention of the High Court was drawn to a clear illegality the High Court could not have rejected the petition as time barred thereby perpetuating the illegality and miscarriage of justice. The question whether a discharge order is interlocutory or otherwise need not detain us because it is settled by a decision of this Court that the discharge order terminates the proceedings and, therefore it is revisable under Section 397(1), Cr.P.C and -Section 397(1) in terms confers power of suo motu revision on the High Court, and if the High Court exercises suo motu revision power the same cannot be denied on the ground that there is some limitation prescribed for the exercise of the power because none such is prescribed. If in such a situation the suo motu power is not exercised what a glaring illegality goes unnoticed can be demonstrably established by this case itself. We however, do not propose to say a single word on the merits of the cause because there should not be even a whimper of prejudice to the accused who in view of this judgment would have to face the trial before the learned Magistrate.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Girdharilal Sapuru And Ors on 11 February 1981

Citations: [1981 ACR SC 161], [1981 AIR SC 1169], [1981 PLR 83 593], [1981 SCC 2 758], [1981 UJ 13 217], [1981 CRI LJ 632], [1981 CRLJ 0 632], [1981 SCC CRI 1 598], [1981 UJ SC 1 217], [1981 CAR 348], [1981 CRLR 275], [1981 SCC CR 598]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1790776/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abf1e4b014971140db74


 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 397 - Calling for records to exercise powers of revision CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 397/401 - Revision Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Girdharilal Sapuru And Ors Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Anju and 6 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 December 2013

Posted on February 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Allahabad High Court has cited a landmark judgment here to hold as follow,

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid verdict Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Girdharilas Sapuru and others (Supra) has held that the discharge order terminates the proceeding and, therefore, it is revisable under Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. This Court while passing the order in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11721 of 2012 (Supra) has held that an order refusing discharge is not an interlocutory order, inasmuch as if the said application is allowed, it would terminate the proceedings, therefore, the revision against the said order would be maintainable.
In view of the aforesaid decisions, the revision against dismissing the discharge application was very well maintainable before the learned lower revisional court and as such, the order passed by the learned lower revisional court is not sustainable in law.

Anju and 6 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 02 December 2013 CRLP(A)_20954_2013

Citations:

Other Source links: http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do?judgmentID=6568265 or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e4224a93261a672e216f


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Anju and 6 Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 397/401 - Revision | 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
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
20h

ఆడపడుచుల మీద తప్పుడు కూతలు కూస్తే ఆ స్రృష్టి నియమం ఇదే🔥🔥....

Reply on Twitter 1942393864603722028 Retweet on Twitter 1942393864603722028 19 Like on Twitter 1942393864603722028 65 X 1942393864603722028
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
elonmusk Elon Musk @elonmusk ·
7 Jul

What’s the time? Oh look, it’s no-one-has-been-arrested-o’clock again …

Reply on Twitter 1942132189229162960 Retweet on Twitter 1942132189229162960 69449 Like on Twitter 1942132189229162960 449059 X 1942132189229162960
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
moment_mirthful Mirthful Moments @moment_mirthful ·
7 Jul

@elonmusk Today's reality

Reply on Twitter 1942148865307926982 Retweet on Twitter 1942148865307926982 52 Like on Twitter 1942148865307926982 584 X 1942148865307926982
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
7 Jul

.@cbn_updates1 @Amaravati_CBN @AP_CRDANews @SriKrishnaLavu @JSP_Guntur @hudcolimited @NRITDPEurope @NriTDPCanada @DSGRAJU1 @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @DhanekulaL @appugog @AluriRaga @AluriRames39301 @ChinathalliM @TheSrujanRaJ @TheOfficialSBI @UnionBankTweets @aiboc_in @JaiTDP

Reply on Twitter 1942096552383975691 Retweet on Twitter 1942096552383975691 2 Like on Twitter 1942096552383975691 2 X 1942096552383975691
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Cases where Perjury Proceedings were initiated July 3, 2025
  • Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024 June 27, 2025
  • Mohammad Wajid and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 08 Aug 2023 June 26, 2025
  • Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Jun 2025 June 26, 2025
  • BSA Sec 128 – Communications during marriage June 25, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,904 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,376 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (2,253 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,745 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,590 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,326 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,150 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (959 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (913 views)
  • Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 (817 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (405)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (375)Landmark Case (369)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (294)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (274)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 (60)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 (718)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (319)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (179)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 (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)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 (1)
  • 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

  • CGK (Jakarta) on 2025-07-16 July 16, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 16, 19:00 - 23:00 UTCJul 3, 06:02 UTCUpdate - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in CGK (Jakarta) datacenter on 2025-07-16 between 19:00 and 23:00 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 […]
  • SOF (Sofia) on 2025-07-15 July 15, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 15, 01:00 - 04:00 UTCJul 2, 14:35 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SOF (Sofia) datacenter on 2025-07-15 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 […]
  • TPA (Tampa) on 2025-07-14 July 14, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 14, 14:00 - 19:00 UTCJul 8, 21:25 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in TPA (Tampa) datacenter on 2025-07-14 between 14:00 and 19:00 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

  • 103.45.247.106 | S July 8, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2 | First: 2025-07-08 | Last: 2025-07-08
  • 190.247.227.74 | SD July 8, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2,295 | First: 2018-09-28 | Last: 2025-07-08
  • 23.155.184.37 | SD July 8, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,368 | First: 2025-05-28 | Last: 2025-07-08
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 2306 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel