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 227 – Discharged

Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018

Posted on December 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Karnataka High Court has set aside the dismissal of the discharge petition u/s 227 CrPC against the Petitioners, up on whom vague allegations were made which did not attract the offences alleged in Charge sheet.

From Para 7,

7. I have meticulously gone through the statement of C.W.1-Vedha, because, she has categorically stated about the accident taken place on 25.07.2015 and she actually saw on that day accused Nos.1 and 2 came in a tipper lorry and dashed the Nano car, wherein C.W.1 and her child and parents were there. Due to the said impact, her father and mother died on the spot. C.W.1 and her child sustained injuries. She has also categorically stated that when she questioned her husband as to why he has given complaint as if it is an accident, then, he threatened her with dire consequence of killing her and the child. But, there is no allegation against these petitioners explaining as to how the incident has happened right from the beginning. Except stating that when accused Nos.3 and 4 though informed about the birth of female child, they did not come and see the child because, it is a female child. She has only stated that there was a small quarrel taking place in the family and sometimes, accused Nos.3 and 4 were also telling her to listen to their words, C.W.1 taken advantage of these small incidents in the family to make allegations. Even it has not been stated as to in what manner those small incidents, projected to mentally and physically harass her. Except making a bald and trivial allegation that they were also ill-treating and harassing her, nothing has been given in the statement except stating that they were quarrelling for trivial issues. Therefore, on these factual aspects, she omnibusly states that accused Nos.3 and 4 were also ill-treating and harassing her.

And from Para 9,

9. Framing of charges against the accused persons depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. One case cannot be compared with another at all. The nature of the allegations made, strength of those allegations and surrounding circumstances have to be looked into by the Court in each case. In this particular case, till the point of time the incident took place, it appears that no allegations have been made against accused Nos.3 and 4. Though there are certain allegations against accused No.1 i.e., the husband of C.W.1, there is no serious allegations against accused Nos.3 and 4. In the above facts and circumstances, particularly, looking to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed a serious error in ordering to frame charges against these petitioners for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It is apparently materials are lacking against these petitioners. Further, I am of the opinion that the allegations made are omnibus in nature and they are not sufficient to frame charges against accused Nos.3 and 4 even for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to be discharged.

Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer on 4 Jan 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/121615977/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a621de44653d00b3602ce39

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations CrPC 227 - Discharged Non-Reportable Judgement or Order Sarva Mangala Vs Station House Officer | Leave a comment

L. Krishna Reddy Vs State on 24 October 2013

Posted on June 22, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

L. Krishna Reddy Vs State on 24 October 2013

Citations: [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 608], [2014 JLJR SC 1 75], [2013 AIR SC 6202], [2014 SCC 14 401], [2013 SUPREME 7 765], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 140], [2013 SCALE 13 259], [2013 AIOL 708], [2015 SCC CRI 1 376], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 485], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 957], [2013 AIC 132 33], [2014 CUTLT 117 975], [2013 AIR SC SUPP 423], [2013 ALLCC 83 947], [2014 NCC 1 280], [2014 CCR SC 1 9], [2014 SCJ 3 735], [2014 DMC 1 107], [2013 JT SC 14 543], [2014 OLR 1 323], [2014 CLT 117 975], [2014 UC 1 59], [2013 MLJ CRI 4 535]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47377728/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af3de4b0149711415e9f


Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 are here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments CrPC 227 - Discharged L. Krishna Reddy Vs State Reportable Judgement or Order Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008

Posted on November 9, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

The Apex Court had held that,

“15. It is trite that the words “not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused” appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible.”

Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra on 28 April, 2008

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

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 227 - Discharged CrPC 227 - Exercise of Judicial Mind Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Grave Suspicion Against Accused Two Views Possible - Supicion Vs Grave Suspicion Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra

Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful Judgment from our Supreme Court. See Hon’ble Apex Court has in detailed analyzed the contention of to quash or not to quash. This has become a landmark judgment which provides the below guidelines to quash/discharge.

Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by theĀ  prosecution/ complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/ complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

 

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

Read the way in which Justice J.S. Khehar has answered the above steps and finally quashed the High Court order to not discharge the accused.

Definitely a interesting read !!

Rajiv Thapar & Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

Citations: [2

Other Source links:


Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.


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 Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 227 - Discharged Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Mala Fide Untenable Maliciously Instituted Case Solely Intended to Harass Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati Submissions Of Accused to Discharge Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Capt. Percy Meher Master Vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. on 4 October, 2017

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court has concluded that the petitioner’s discharge petition deserves allowance as none of the allegations made under various sections in the case does not hold good to continue the proceedings.

Capt. Percy Meher Master Vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. on 4 October, 2017

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Capt. Percy Meher Master Vs The State Of Maharashtra CrPC 227 - Discharged CrPC 239 - Discharged | Leave a comment

Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr on 6 November, 1978

Posted on June 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Awesome judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court whereby a person is discharged under section 227 Cr.P.C. from the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act.

From Para 3

The short point which arises for determination in this case is the scope and ambit of an order of discharge to be passed by a Special Judge under section 227 of the Code. The appeal does not raise any new question of law and there have been several authorities of the High Courts as also of this Court on the various aspects and grounds on which an accused person can be discharged, but as section 227 of the Code is a new section and at the time when the application for special leave was filed, there was no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of section 227 of the Code, the matter was thought fit to be given due consideration by this Court.

From Para 5,

Thus, it would appear that the legislature while dispensing with the procedure for commitment enquiry
under the Code of 1898 has conferred a dual responsibility on the Trial Judge who has first to examine the case on the basis of the statement of witnesses recorded by the police and the documents filed with a view to find out whether a prima facie case for trial has been made out and then if such a case is made out to proceed to try the same. In our view the legislature has adopted this course in order to avoid frivolous prosecutions and prevent the accused from being tried of an offence on materials which do not furnish
a reasonable probability of conviction.

From Para 7,

At the stage of section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.

 

Few terms used by Hon’ble Justices of Apex Court in earlier judgments are

  1. … Magistrate … is not to act as a mere Post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution
  2. Magistrate holding an enquiry is not intended to act merely as a recording machine.

 

Following principles have emerged

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out:
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

 

Union Of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978

Citations: [1979 SCR 2 229], [1979 AIR SC 366], [1979 MLJ CRI 361], [1979 SCC 3 4], [1979 CRILJ 154], [1979 SCC CRI 609]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1360078/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcce4b014971140d5de


Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 227 - Discharge CrPC 227 - Discharged Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Grave Suspicion Against Accused Reportable Judgement or Order Union Of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr | Leave a comment

Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

Posted on April 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another SC Judgment discharging the accused u/s 227 of Cr.P.C, as there is no ground to proceed to Trial under IPC 498A.

But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are under heavy pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.

 

Similar situation arise under Section 239 of the Code (which deals with trial of warrant cases on police report). In that situation the Magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report and the documents sent therewith. At these two State the Code enjoins on the Court to give audience to the accused for deciding whether it is necessary to proceed to the next State. It is a matter of exercise of judicial mind. There is nothing in the code which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments. If the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by the Court at that stage. Here the “ground” may be any valid ground including insufficiency of evidence to prove charge.

Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

Citations: [1

Other Source links:


Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.


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 Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 227 - Discharged IPC 498a - Not Made Out Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration 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 Maharastra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008‘.

Note3: 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)

 

Vague and General 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. Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012 (Scenarios when a criminal proceeding can be quashed)
  7. Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs. Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and others on 25 September, 2012
  8. Dipakbhai Ratilal Patel Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2014
  9. Sandeep Singh Bais Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2017
  10. Nafisa Anjum Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 26 Sep 2018 [Chattisgarh HC: DV on relatives quashed who do not have shared household]
  11. Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 (AP High Court)
  12. Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. Anr on 03 Apr 2019 (Telangana High Court: No evidence of Dowry Transaction)
  13. Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (Conviction of 498A IPC set aside due to settlement; Cites BS Joshi caselaw)
  14. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (498A IPC quashed due to General and Omnibus allegations)

 

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
  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]

 

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. Vineet Kumar And Ors Vs State Of UP & Anr on 31 March, 2017
  9. State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017
  10. Chandresh Shrivastava Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2018

 

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.

 

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 Catena of Landmark Judgments 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 - 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 Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • MS Knit Pro International Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 20 May 2022 May 23, 2022
  • Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 May 20, 2022
  • Doongar Singh and Ors Vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 Nov 2017 May 20, 2022
  • Anurag Saxena Vs Union of India on 17 May 2022 May 19, 2022
  • Sumer Singh Salkan Vs Asstt Director and Ors on 11 Aug 2010 May 15, 2022

Most Read Posts

  • Lifecycle Stages of a Maintenance Case under 125 CrPC (3,472 views)
  • Arunkumar N Chaturvedi Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 24 Dec 2013 (2,694 views)
  • Neha Vs Vibhor Garg on 12 Nov 2021 (1,893 views)
  • Bhagyashri Jagdish Jaiswal Vs Jagdish Sajjanlala Jaiswal and Anr on 26 Feb 2022 (1,108 views)
  • Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022 (1,000 views)
  • Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022 (668 views)
  • NBW Judgments (620 views)
  • Life Cycles of Various case types (560 views)
  • Busarapu Satya Yesu Babu Vs State of AP and Sake Roja on 05 Nov 2021 (517 views)
  • Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (513 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (299)Reportable Judgement or Order (285)Landmark Case (282)Work-In-Progress Article (213)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (206)Catena of Landmark Judgments (184)1-Judge Bench Decision (100)Sandeep Pamarati (85)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (70)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (70)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (50)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (48)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (37)Recommended Guidelines or Directions (33)Advocate Antics (33)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (32)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (588)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (292)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (151)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (103)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (55)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (47)LLB Study Material (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (38)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (34)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (32)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (17)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (14)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • May 2022 (10)
  • 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 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (36)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • 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 (102)
  • 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
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Cloudflare Workers Analytics Issues May 23, 2022
    May 23, 21:51 UTCInvestigating - Some customers might experience errors accessing Cloudflare Workers Analytics data in the Cloudflare dashboard and APIs.
  • Network Performance Issues in the Czech Republic May 23, 2022
    May 23, 17:24 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.May 23, 15:57 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.May 23, 15:54 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is investigating issues with network performance in the Czech Republic. We are working to analyze and mitigate this problem. More updates to follow shortly.
  • Cloudflare Community Maintenance May 23, 2022
    May 23, 15:00 UTCCompleted - The scheduled maintenance has been completed.May 23, 13:00 UTCIn progress - Scheduled maintenance is currently in progress. We will provide updates as necessary.May 19, 21:24 UTCScheduled - Our vendor will be conducting a planned maintenance on the Cloudflare Community site (https://community.cloudflare.com).The Community may observe a short (1 - 2 minutes) […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.243.242.25 | SD May 22, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,224 | First: 2021-07-31 | Last: 2022-05-22
  • 106.13.128.148 | S May 22, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 8 | First: 2022-05-22 | Last: 2022-05-22
  • 192.3.198.24 | S May 22, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 21 | First: 2022-04-03 | Last: 2022-05-22
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 622 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel