Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 09 Nov 2020

Posted on November 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Division Bench of Bombay High Court, while denying interim protection from arrest to Arnab Goswami, held that,

From Para 45,

45. The principle stated therein will equally apply to the exercise of this Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while considering the applications for bail since the petitioner is already in Judicial custody. The legislature has provided specific remedy under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for applying for regular bail. Having regard to the alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has to exercise judicial restraint while entertaining application in the nature of seeking regular bail in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

and from Para 70,

70. In our opinion, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to apply for regular bail. At the time of concluding the hearing of Applications, we had made it clear that if the petitioner, if so advised, to apply for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned Court, then, in that case, we have directed the concerned Court to decide the said
application within four days from filing of the same.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 09 Nov 2020

Here is the Bail application

Arnab Bail Application

Amarjit Kaur and Ors Vs Jaswinder Kaur and Ors on 15 May 2020

Posted on May 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Taking cue from Geeta Mehrotra judgment here, Punjab High Court has quashed proceedings on relatives living far away in Canada taking a ground that no specific allegation are in the complaint.

Amarjit Kaur and Ors Vs Jaswinder Kaur and Ors on 15 May 2020

Citations: [2]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12422589/

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd Vs State of West Bengal on 17 October, 2019

Posted on October 20, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court held that, a High Court can quash even an interlocutory order under section 482 CrPC.

From Para 11,

11. Coming to the final issue, Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. provides that the High Court’s powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. Whereas Section 482 of the Cr.P.C provides that nothing in the Cr.P.C will limit the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Hence the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside an interlocutory order, notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2). However it is settled law that this can only be done in exceptional cases. This is, for example, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction (See Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551).

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd Vs State of West Bengal on 17 October, 2019

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org link:

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

Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012

Posted on October 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The legal contention to be decided authoritatively in this case in front of Apex Court is that “it should not be understood to have meant that Judges can quash any kind of criminal case merely because there has been a compromise between the parties. After all, a crime is an offence against society, and not merely against a private individual”.

This was referred from a 2-judge bench of Apex Court to decide the issue authoritatively and dissolve the ambiguity, if any.

Some or all of the following tests may be relevant to decide whether to quash or not to quash the criminal proceedings in a given case;

(a) the nature and gravity of case;

(b) does the dispute reflect overwhelming and predominantly civil flavour;

(c) would the quashing involve settlement of entire or almost the entire dispute;

(d) the compromise/settlement between parties and/or other facts and the circumstances render possibility of conviction remote and bleak;

(e) not to quash would cause extreme injustice and would not serve ends of justice and

(f) not to quash would result in abuse of process of court.

Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012

The key judgment cited in this judgment is here.

Citations: [2012 SCALE 9 257], [2012 SLT 7 171], [2012 CRLJ SC 4934], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 543], [2012 SCC 10 303], [2012 AIR SC 5333], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 4 428], [2013 SCC CRI 1 160], [2012 CRIMES SC 4 155], [2012 AIOL 413], [2012 SCC CIV 4 1188], [2012 SCC L&S 2 988], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 769], [2012 KLJ 4 141], [2012 KERLT 4 108], [2012 GUJ LH 3 394], [2012 AIR SC SUPP 838], [2013 RLW SC 4 3573], [2013 BLJ 2 289], [2012 SCR 8 753], [2012 KARLJ 5 476], [2012 WLN 4 71], [2012 CGLRW 3 98], [2012 JT SC 9 426], [2012 AIR SCW 5333]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69949024/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af16e4b014971141590c

https://indianlawportal.co.in/gian-singh-v-state-of-punjab/

Myla Sunitha Priyadarshini Vs SHO Nandyal III Town P.S. & State of A.P. on 13 April, 2015

Posted on September 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on judgment of AP High Court here, this judgment has quashed the entire proceedings under CrPC 482, on the A3 (sister of husband) as there are omnibus allegations on the accused A3.

Myla Sunitha Priyadarshini Vs SHO Nandyal III Town P.S. & State of A.P. on 13 April, 2015

Citations: [2015 ALT CRI 3 478]

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017

Posted on August 31, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is classic case of non-application of judicial mind all all levels of a criminal case proceedings, until the Hon’ble Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that the allegations in this case do not attract ingredients of IPC 498A or IPC 406 and thereby quashed the entire proceedings for good.

From Paras 8 and 9,

8. We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498-A was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the aforementioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The records at hand could not disclose any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage. The record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.

9. The ingredients of criminal breach of trust are also not forthcoming from the records as against the appellants. The allegations contained in the complaint and the charge-sheet do not satisfy the definition of criminal breach of trust, as contained in Section 405 IPC. In view of the blurred allegations, and as we find that the complainant is only citing the incidents of unhappiness with her husband, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the prosecution against the appellants. This is a case where there is a total absence of allegations for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 406 IPC. In the matter on hand, the allegations made in the first information report as well as the material collected during the investigation, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the appellant-accused. So also the uncontroverted allegations found against the appellants do not disclose the commission of the offence alleged and make out a case against the accused. The proceedings initiated against the appellants are liable to be quashed.

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017

The AP High Court order is here.

Citations : [2017 SCC 9 413], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1049], [2017 AIR SC 4434], [2017 ALLCC 101 359], [2017 CCR SC 4 140], [2017 DMCSC 3 529], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 4 113], [2017 SCALE 11 131], [2017 SCC CRI 3 740]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/164920459/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/59b03f0fce686e45ff91df85

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/varala-bharath-kumar-vs-the-state-of-telangana-998

Yadwinder Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018

Posted on August 31, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A detailed judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, categorically held that police at Nalagarh had no jurisdiction, as has/had been held hereinabove, proceedings if any pending before Courts at Nalagarh cannot be allowed to sustain and thereby the FIR dated 7.10.2014 as well as consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside

And the knife is at liberty to initiate action, if any, against the petitioners, on account of allegations contained in impugned FIR but at Jallandhar(Pb), either by lodging fresh FIR or by pursuing complaint filed by her at Women Cell Jallandhar.

Yadwinder Singh & Others Vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018

Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in this wonderful judgment, held that

it could not be said that the petitioner who is alleged to have been having an extramarital affair with the husband of the first informant since 2011, would fall within the ambit of “Relative”. Let me assume for the moment that the husband of the first informant has got married with the petitioner in February, 2014. Primafacie, the marriage is invalid. The first marriage is still in subsistence. In such circumstances, the offence under Section 498A could not be said to have been committed.

And, also IPC 494 not applicable on woman,

Section 494 cannot be made applicable against the petitioner because Section 494 is an offence committed by the husband. If a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The husband is sought to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The same cannot be made applicable so far as the petitioner before me is concerned.

Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014

Shreyas Sharma Vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2014

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in this order has held that

In this particular case, admittedly the police have not seized the Passport during the course of investigation. But at the time of granting bail the court has secured the Passport and kept it in the safe custody of the court and it amounts to retention of the said document and virtually amounts to impounding of the said document, which is prohibited under the above said provision of law and also in view of the decision of the Apex Court.

Shreyas Sharma Vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2014

Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs Mangal on 3 May, 2018

Posted on July 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Two questions of interpretation of law in regards to the DV Act are explained in this landmark Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.

Q1. Whether or not the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2008 are in the nature of criminal proceedings ?

Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are predominantly of civil nature and it is only when there is a breach of the protection order as is contemplated under Section 31 and failure or refusal to discharge duty without any sufficient cause by the protection officer as contemplated under Section 33, the proceedings assume the character of criminality. The first question is answered accordingly.

Q2. Whether or not the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ?

the second question is answered in the affirmative.

Now, one incidental question would arise as to from what stage the provisions of the Cr.P.C. would become applicable and in our view, the answer could be found out from the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the D.V. Act.

A combined reading of these provisions shows that the commencement of the proceedings would take place the moment, the Magistrate applies his mind to the contents of the application and passes any judicial order including that of issuance of notice. Once, the proceeding commences, the procedure under Section 28 of the D.V. Act, subject to the exceptions provided in the Act and the rules framed thereunder, would apply. In other words, save as otherwise provided in the D.V. Act and the rules framed thereunder and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 28, the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall govern the proceedings under Sections 12 to 23 and also those relating to an offence under Section 31 of the D.V. Act on their commencement.

Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs Mangal on 3 May, 2018

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 482 – Saving of inherent powers of High Court

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 09 Nov 2020

Amarjit Kaur and Ors Vs Jaswinder Kaur and Ors on 15 May 2020

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd Vs State of West Bengal on 17 October, 2019

Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012

Myla Sunitha Priyadarshini Vs SHO Nandyal III Town P.S. & State of A.P. on 13 April, 2015

Varala Bharath Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana on 5 September, 2017

Yadwinder Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018

Babita Sumanprakash Soni Vs State Of Gujarat & on 4 December, 2014

Shreyas Sharma Vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2014

Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs Mangal on 3 May, 2018