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: IPC 506 – Not Made Out

Arun Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 10 July 2019

Posted on December 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Whether an Advocate, while acting under the instructions of his client and proceeding professionally, can be prosecuted / punished for the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is the precise question involved in this petition which came before High Court of Chhattisgarh.

From Para 10,

10. It appears from the aforesaid genealogical tree that respondent No.2 herein has been shown to be the concubine / wife of Ghanshyam Pandey. This, according to respondent No.2, is defamatory, as she is the legally married wife of Ghanshyam Pandey after the death of his first wife Smt. Tarini Pandey and that led to the present dispute.

From Para 24,

24. In light of above-stated legal analysis, an advocate, who acted professionally as per instructions of his/her client, cannot be made criminally liable for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the IPC unless contrary is alleged and established.

From Para 26,

….

As such, an Advocate who has acted professionally and drafted plaint making averment as per the instructions of his client, cannot be held liable for the offence of defamation under Section 500 of the IPC.

Finally from Para 33,

33. Admittedly, respondent No.2 claims that the alleged incident happened in the year 2014 and after lapse of 3-4 years, FIR has been lodged which clearly goes to show that there was no intention of the petitioner to cause harm, as in such a case, she would have rushed to the police authority well in time. As such, even it cannot be held that the petitioner has abused and insulted respondent No.2 in terms of Section 506 of the IPC.

Arun Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh on 10 July 2019
Posted in High Court of Chhattisgarh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Advocate Antics Arun Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh Catena of Landmark Judgments IPC 294 - Not Made Out IPC 499 - Defamation IPC 499 - Defamation Not Made Out IPC 506 - Not Made Out IPC 509 - Not Made Out Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Professional Advice of Advocate | Leave a comment

State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar on 18 May 2018

Posted on April 2, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Smt. S.D. Javalgekar, Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.5) Sangli delivered this judgment.

Para 23,

23. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable  doubts. Though in such offences special weightage should be given to the version of the complainant, it should also be corroborated by other supportive evidence. In absence of such evidence vague allegations of the complainant cannot be taken as true. There are many instances in society wherein females of mischievous nature spoil the family peace by making false allegations and by unnecessarily involving innocent persons in the offence. From the discussion above, I find no substance in the various allegations of the complainant. Hence, I hold that accused persons are innocent and not liable for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar on 18 May 2018

Citations:

Other Source links:


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 District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Acquitted in IPC 498A IPC 323 - Not Made Out IPC 498a - Not Made Out IPC 504 - Not Made Out IPC 506 - Not Made Out Legal Terrorism State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar | Leave a comment

Dr.Varun Kumar Vs The State of TN on 26 June, 2018

Posted on September 16, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a case of malicious litigation per High Court of Madras in a complaint for offences under Sections 406, 417, 420, 506(i) IPC, Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as DP Act), Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 1998 (herein after referred to as TNPHW Act) and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 (herein after referred to as IT Act).

Hon’ble Court has mercilessly quashed the petition and threw it out the window, for good.

Dr.Varun Kumar Vs The State of TN on 26 June, 2018
Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged DP Act 4 - Not Made Out Dr.Varun Kumar Vs The State of TN IPC 417 - Punishment for cheating IPC 420 - Not Made Out IPC 506 - Not Made Out Section 66 of IT Act Sensational Or Peculiar Cases | Leave a comment

Geeta Mehrotra and Anr Vs State Of U.P. and Anr on 17 October, 2012

Posted on May 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a popular quash judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of IPC 498A, IPC 504, IPC 506 and 3 & 4 of DP Act.

The grounds on which quash is done are

  1. No territorial jurisdiction
  2. No specific allegations on accused
  3. No justification for delay of 7 years in filing complaint

 

Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125470413/

Citations: [(2012) 10 SCC 741]


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 Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Delay or Unexplained Delay In Filing Complaint DP Act 3 - Not Made Out DP Act 4 - Not Made Out Geeta Mehrotra and Anr Vs State Of U.P. and Anr IPC 506 - Not Made Out Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Territorial Jurisdiction Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Rekha Jain vs The State on 12 September, 2017

Posted on April 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a good judgment from Justice Sh. Ashutosh Kumar at Delhi District Court at Rohini Court, Delhi. Many law points are elucidated with support from various orders from Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Courts.

Intro

Knife filed three complaints to Police,

  1. first one with general allegations pertaining to the entire duration of her stay at in-laws home
  2. another complaint to ACP, again, with general allegations pertaining to the entire duration of her stay at in-laws home, which she claims was withdrawn under pressure from in-laws
  3. another complaint to ACP, after a gap of 7 months, seeking reopening of the complaint #2, this time with improved allegations such as dowry demand and taking away of entire jewelry and few financial allegations such as NOT helping her to recharge her phone, NOT payment of fee of her M.Sc. II year

Proceedings

Interestingly, advocate for the husband and his family relied on a catena of 33 judgments.

Advocate for Knife tried to argue that revision petition is not maintainable as per section 397 Cr.P.C since the order framing of charge is an interlocutory order, which was binned by the Hon’ble Judge by saying ‘from law laid down in catena of subsequent judgments which are still valid, it has been well settled that the order framing of charge is not an interlocutory order and hence revision petition against the same would be maintainable.‘

Since the order framing of charge substantially affects the rights of accused and in case the plea of the accused is accepted in revision against order of framing of charge, it would finally culminate the proceedings, thus the order of framing of charge cannot be said to be interlocutory.

 

In Para 12,

the Judge observed, it is clear that there is no specific allegation of the harassment or beating of the complainant relating to cruelty towards her as defined in section 498A IPC i.e. for fulfillment of dowry demand or to force the complainant to commit suicide.

 

In Para 14,

it was held, it is clear that the said complaint was pertaining to all incidents of harassment and cruelty towards the complainant which occurred during her stay at matrimonial home and NOT with respect to incident dated 30.07.2013 only, when she was turned out of matrimonial home. Nowhere in the said complaint dated 04.08.2013, the complainant had stated that other  incidents of cruelty towards her by in-laws, shall be disclosed subsequently.

… no cruelty relating to dowry demand as envisaged u/s 498A IPC or which may have forced the complainant to commit suicide, is
prima facie made out. Thus from the initial two complaints dated 04.08.2013 and 05.08.2013 of the complainant, no offence u/s 498A, 406 IPC or 506 IPC is made out.

… it was held that first version as disclosed in the complaint is always important for adjudicating as to whether the accused has committed or not committed an offence and if the complaint lacks essential ingredients, lacuna or deficiency, same cannot be filled by obtaining additional complaint or supplementary statement and effort on the part of police to supply deficiency and cover up a lacuna of complaint was totally unwarranted and an abuse of process of law.

 

In Para 15,

Even as per complainant, she was the only one who was the eye witness to her alleged harassment and beating etc. Statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C of other two material witnesses namely Sub. Maj. Hari Chand (father) and Darshana Devi (mother) of the complainant regarding alleged incidents, are hearsay and will not be admissible in evidence.

It is pertinent to mention that revisionist Neetu Jain [in CR No.53/16 (New No.49934/16)], has not been even named in any of the initial two complaints. There is no allegation against Neetu Jain for causing simple hurt to complainant in any of the two initial complaints. There is no MLC of the complainant on record regarding any of her alleged beatings or torture.

Nowhere in the initial two complaints, the complainant has alleged that the revisionist/husband Shasak Jain had extended any threat to kill her, as a result of which any alarm was caused to her. Thus no offence u/s 506 IPC is made out against the revisionist Shasak
Jain.

In none of the initial two complaints the complainant had alleged that she had entrusted her istridhan articles including gold jewellery to revisionist Rekha Jain and Neetu Jain. Rather in the third complaint only she has stated so and in the last she has stated that the said jewellery is with her motherinlaw now. As already discussed above, third complaint in this regard cannot be looked into as the same appears to be improvement.

However from the allegations in the first complaint, prima facie offence u/s 323/34 IPC is made out against the revisionists Shasak Jain and Rekha Jain, since no MLC is required for proving the offence u/s 323 IPC.

 

[pdf-embedder url=”http://www.shadesofknife.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Smt.-Rekha-Jain-vs-The-State-on-12-September-2017.pdf” title=”Smt. Rekha Jain vs The State on 12 September, 2017″]

 

Read the other Judgments cited in this order here.


[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court 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 IPC 406 - Not Made Out IPC 498a - Not Made Out IPC 506 - Not Made Out No Material To Sustain Charge Rekha Jain vs The State | 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 New Era Fabrics Ltd Vs Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri and Ors on 03 Mar 2020 June 26, 2022
  • Madras High Court Advocates Association Vs Dr.A.S.Anand, Honble The C.J.I. on 12 May 2001 June 26, 2022
  • Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha K.S on 31 Aug 2021 June 26, 2022
  • Swaran Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 Apr 2000 June 26, 2022
  • Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha K S Cases June 26, 2022

Most Read Posts

  • Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022 (1,430 views)
  • Bhagyashri Jagdish Jaiswal Vs Jagdish Sajjanlala Jaiswal and Anr on 26 Feb 2022 (1,406 views)
  • Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022 (812 views)
  • Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (769 views)
  • Luckose Zachariah Vs Joseph Joseph on 18 Feb 2022 (710 views)
  • Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (648 views)
  • Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (640 views)
  • Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (464 views)
  • Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022 (410 views)
  • MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021 (405 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (309)Reportable Judgement or Order (294)Landmark Case (291)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (219)Work-In-Progress Article (212)Catena of Landmark Judgments (190)1-Judge Bench Decision (107)Sandeep Pamarati (85)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (75)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (72)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (37)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions (36)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)Advocate Antics (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (602)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (295)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (152)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (104)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (88)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (58)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (49)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (39)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (38)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (35)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 Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (15)

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

  • June 2022 (22)
  • 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 (29)
  • 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 (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

  • Network connectivity issues in the Ashburn region June 24, 2022
    Jun 24, 10:48 UTCResolved - Cloudflare experienced Network connectivity issues in the Ashburn region between 09:45 and 09:47 UTC.
  • Cloudflare API service issues June 22, 2022
    Jun 22, 18:41 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jun 22, 18:34 UTCMonitoring - Cloudflare is investigating issues with API availability from 1750-1755 UTC.Customers using Cloudflare APIs are impacted as requests might fail and/or errors may be displayed.
  • Cloudflare Service Issues June 21, 2022
    Jun 21, 08:06 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jun 21, 07:51 UTCUpdate - We are still monitoring the result.Jun 21, 07:20 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jun 21, 06:57 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jun 21, 06:43 UTCInvestigating - A […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 187.109.19.131 | SD June 25, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 80 | First: 2019-08-06 | Last: 2022-06-25
  • 103.18.100.247 | SD June 25, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 11,024 | First: 2022-04-04 | Last: 2022-06-25
  • 114.99.11.184 | S June 25, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 23 | First: 2021-02-04 | Last: 2022-06-25
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 369 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel