Gopika Jayan and Anr Vs Faisal on 22 Jun 2022

A division bench of Kerala High Court, issued notices to Police and Judicial officers, in a Contempt Case against them.

From Para 1,

1. The afore captioned Contempt of Court case has been instituted alleging patent and flagrant violation of the directives and guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the Celebrated case Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014(8) SCC 273)=2014 (3) KLJ 330.

From Para 6,

The case papers produced in this contempt petition do not show any application of mind. On the other hand, Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A8 FIS were registered on 21.01.2022 at 8 pm on the premise of a mere man missing report in regard to the first petitioner. No allegation of deliberate abandonment or desertion of the child has been made even in Annexure A8 email. It was later that false allegations were raised that the first petitioner had deliberately abandoned the child and the respondent Police Officer has without any application of mind and without satisfying himself on the basis of any objective enquiry has sought for the arrest and remand of the petitioners. When the petitioners were called to the Police Station,
they were on the bonafide belief that the FIR was registered only as a man missing report under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act. The respondent Police Officer had never properly apprised the petitioners that the offence has been duly altered and the records do not show as to how the respondent Police Officer was satisfied that the case involves deliberate and premeditated abandoning of the child in the facts and circumstances of this case. Further, neither the mother of the first petitioner, nor the Police authorities have any case that the 1st petitioner has at any prior point of time abandoned the child on any previous occasion. From the abovesaid aspects apprised to us by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we see that a 22 year old young working lady and her colleague have been arrested and remanded at the instance of the respondent Officer. Prima facie, we would also observe in the same breadth that though, the first petitioner had given a statement before the learned Magistrate in terms of Annexure A6, the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration those aspects regarding the harassment said to have been meted out to her by her so called step father and has not cared to make any proper satisfaction as to whether the case of deliberate and premeditated abandonment of the child is made out. This we say so in view of the first proviso to Section 75 of the JJ Act. Direction no.8 in Paragraph 14 of Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra) would also concede that authorizing detention without recording proper reasons as aforesaid by the Judicial Magistrate concerned shall also be liable for Departmental action by the appropriate High Court etc. It is by now, well established as an elementary proposition of criminal jurisprudence as can be seen from a reading of Arnesh Kumar’s case (supra), D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, [AIR 1997 SC 610], as well as Jogindar Kumar V. State of UP & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 260], that no arrest can be made merely because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so and the existence of the power to arrest is one thing and justification of the exercise of it is quite another and no arrest shall be made without reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation about the genuineness and bonafides of a complaint and a reasonable belief that both as per the person’s complicity and even as to the necessity to arrest that person and denial of liberty is a serious matter, etc. These aspects of the matter have also been referred to in the celebrated decisions of the Apex Court in D.K. Basu’s case [AIR 1997 SC 610] and Joginder Kumar Vs. State of UP [AIR 1994 SC 1349].

From Para 8, Conclusion.

8. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Contempt of Court case will stand admitted. Issue notice to the respondent Officer, which shall be served on him through the Commissioner of Police, KochiCity. In case the respondent Officer is not available in the abovesaid address, then notice process shall be duly completed by affixture, in the presence of witnesses and report in that regard shall be duly given to this Court within three days.

From Para 9,

9. The Registrar General will forthwith call for a report from the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, who has rendered Annexure A7 remand order dated 03.02.2022 on Crime No.44/2022 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam, as to how he could reach reasonable satisfaction, based on the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions and the applicable legal principles and as to why the arrest and remand of both these accused persons was highly imperative. So also, it shall be explained as to how he has ordered that A1 (1st petitioner) is remanded to the District Jail, Kakkanad and A2 (2nd petitioner) is remanded to the Judicial custody to Borstal School, Kakkanad.
10. The Registrar General will forward a copy of the memorandum of this Contempt Petition with all the Annexures thereto as well as the additional documents to the learned Magistrate, who shall submit his explanation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a communication in that regard by the Registrar General.

Gopika Jayan and Anr Vs Faisal on 22 Jun 2022

Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020

Posted on April 4 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench at Allahabad High Court held as follows:

From Para 16,

16. According to own case of the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 is still a legally wedded wife of one Mahesh Chandra. As per own alleged application dated 17.09.2020 (as reproduced in para 6 above), the petitioners are living as husband and wife and they have sought protection from interference in their living together as husband and wife. Once the petitioner No.1 is a married woman being wife of one Mahesh Chandra, the act of petitioners particularly the petitioner No.2, may constitute an offence under Sections 494/495 I.P.C. Such a relationship does not fall within the phrase “live-in-relationship” or “relationship in the nature of marriage”. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for protection from interference by others in their living as husband and wife. If the protection as prayed is granted, it may amount to grant protection against commission of offences under Sections 494/495 I.P.C.

From Para 18,

18. It is settled law that writ of mandamus can be issued if the petitioner has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. Similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh vs. State of U.P. 13. Applying the principles of issuance of writ of mandamus on the facts of the present case, we find that the petitioners have no legal right for protection on the facts of the present case inasmuch as such the protection as being asked, may amount to protection against commission of offence under Section 494/495 I.P.C. It is well settled law that writ of mandamus can not be issued contrary to law or to defeat a statutory provision including penal provision. The petitioners do not have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus.

Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020

Santhanam and Anr Vs State and Anr on 20 Sep 2021

Posted on September 25, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A saga of illicit relationship of 5 years between two advocates is twisted into a tale of rape!!!

Santhanam and Anr Vs State and Anr on 20 Sep 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

Kade Kumar Swamy Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 02 Dec 2020

Posted on August 7, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A Presiding officer in Telangana went into merits of a petition (which was seeking permanent injunction over a suit scheduled property) and rejected it, even before it was numbered!!! A single judge bench of the Telangana High Court sent the PO to training in Judicial Academy…

Kade Kumar Swamy Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 02 Dec 2020

An earlier instance, just about a month back!!!

Nanavath Raj Kumar Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 04 Nov 2020

Gulfasha Vs State of Maharashtra on 28 Jun 2021

Posted on July 11, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Bombay High Court asked a trial court to explain it’s stand when the trail court refused to accept cash bail and release an accused who is in jail with her 10 months son.

From Paras 4-9,

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that in spite of this order and in spite of urgency mentioned in the order itself, the trial Court has not accepted cash bail and has not released the Applicant on bail as of today.
5. This is serious breach of order passed by this Court. The trial Court was expected to follow the clear directions issued in the operative part of the order mentioned in paragraph No.8 of that order. The trial Court was not concerned with the other narration as well as reasoning part in the order. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the operative part of the order and it was duty of the trial Court to follow the order. In spite of that, unnecessary hurdles are created in giving effect to that order. Learned counsel for the Applicant states that specious reason given for not releasing the Applicant, was that section 302 of IPC was not mentioned in first paragraph of the order.
6. This Court does not have to explain the narration mentioned in this order to the trial Court. However, to clarify this, it is necessary to mention that, initially the offence was registered u/s 307 of the IPC on the basis of statement given by the deceased herself. Subsequently, the deceased had succumbed to her burns and the informant was described as ‘the deceased’ in the order. There is also reference to the ‘dying declaration’, in paragraph No.7. In spite of this, the trial Court exceeding its jurisdiction, has refused to obey order of this Court, specifically mentioned in paragraph No.8 as the operative part. This has seriously affected the Applicant’s valuable right of getting released on bail at the earliest. Her liberty is affected in spite of clear directions of this Court.
7. If there was any ambiguity in the order, it was for the parties and in particular was for learned APP, who had appeared in the matter, to point it at. The order could have also been corrected by a higher forum. But the trial Court had no authority to question that order. In any case, the operative part of the order is very clear and there was absolutely no ambiguity. The trial Court was supposed to follow these directions mentioned in the operative part.
8. In spite of this order, the Applicant had to suffer in jail custody for more period than was necessary, particularly when she had 10 months old child with her. Considering the repeated concerns expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding unnecessary crowding of the jail, the attitude of the trial Court is not proper in this case.
9. In these circumstances to prevent any further hurdles and only for that purpose, I am clarifying and adding section 302 of IPC in the first paragraph of the order. However, the trial Court will have to explain its stand and report will have to be submitted to this Court.

Gulfasha Vs State of Maharashtra on 28 Jun 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101221193/

Nasruddin Mian Vs State of Bihar on 21 Jun 2021

Posted on July 4, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Patna High Court held that this is not how a judgment is to be written, while acquitting a husband from a conviction given for the alleged offence of murdering his wife.

78. The judgment under consideration is an example of how not to write a judgment. It has repeatedly been emphasized by the Supreme Court that the Courts and Judges must make a dispassionate assessment of evidence and that the Courts and Judges should not be swayed by the horror of crime and the character of the person. The judgment should be made by a Judge uninfluenced by his own imagined norms of the functioning of the society.
79. The Trial Court ought to have avoided the sweeping and disparaging remarks made in para 42 of its judgment regarding the conduct of the appellants.
80. I fail to see as to how the Trial Court held in para 44 of its judgment that the charge was framed against the appellants under Section 498-A of the IPC after the informant filed an application for addition to the original charge. The order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the Trial Court, which has been extracted hereinabove, would clearly show that the original charge under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201/34 of the IPC was altered to Sections 304-B, 302 and 201/34 of the IPC. The trial court did not allow the prayer of the informant regarding addition of Sections 304-B and 302 of the IPC to the original charge already framed against them meaning thereby that due to alteration of the original charge vide order dated 08.05.2017, the charge under Sections 498-A and 306 became non-existent.
81. As a matter of fact, for all practical purposes, after alteration of the charge, the appellants were being tried only for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 302 and 201/34 of the IPC.
82. Surprisingly, in para 43 of the judgment, the Trial Court held that the case under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out. After alteration of charge, since there was no charge under Section 306 of the IPC, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to have recorded such finding in respect of Section 306 of the IPC.
83. Evidently, while passing the impugned judgment, the Trial Court had misconceived that the appellants were also being tried for the original charge framed under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.
84. While saying so, I am mindful of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shanti Vs. State of Haryana, since reported in (1991) 1 SCC 371, wherein it has been held that Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC are not mutually exclusive. They deal with two distinct offences. A person charged and acquitted under Section 304-B of the IPC can be convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC without charge being framed, if such a case is made out. But from the point of view of practice and procedure and to avoid technical defects, it is necessary in such cases to frame charges under both
the sections and if the case is established against the accused, they can be convicted under both the Sections but no separate sentence need be awarded under Section 498-A in view of the substantive sentence being awarded for the major offence under Section 304-B.

Nasruddin Mian Vs State of Bihar on 21 Jun 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193472418/

Krishna Prasad Verma (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs State of Bihar on 26 Sep 2019

Posted on March 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

The division bench of the Apex Court held as follows:

From Para 16,

16. We would, however, like to make it clear that we are in no manner indicating that if a judicial officer passes a wrong order, then no action is to be taken. In case a judicial officer passes orders which are against settled legal norms but there is no allegation of any extraneous influences leading to the passing of such orders then the appropriate action which the High Court should take is to record such material on the administrative side and place it on the service record of the judicial officer concerned. These matters can be taken into consideration while considering career progression of the concerned judicial officer. Once note of the wrong order is taken and they form part of the service record these can be taken into consideration to deny selection grade, promotion etc., and in case there is a continuous flow of wrong or illegal orders then the proper action would be to compulsorily retire the judicial officer, in accordance with the Rules. We again reiterate that unless there are clear-cut allegations of misconduct, extraneous influences, gratification of any kind etc., disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated merely on the basis that a wrong order has been passed by the judicial officer or merely on the ground that the judicial order is incorrect.

Krishna Prasad Verma (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs State of Bihar on 26 Sep 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1330], [2019 SCC 10 640], [2020 SCC CRI 1 78], [2019 AIR SC 4852]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/23604802/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5dc567dd46571b38af731d48

Archana Deepak Jatkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2021

Posted on March 11, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Anticipatory Bail was denied to the alleged corrupt Judicial officer by the single-judge bench of Bombay High Court

Archana Deepak Jatkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2021

Jiten Bhalla Vs Gaytri Bajaj on 08 Sep 2008

Posted on January 18, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Delhi High Court passed this Judgment, critiquing the conduct of a ADJ in a matrimonial case…

124. Here in the present case, the Addl.District Judge without recording the evidence and without going into the allegations and counter allegations made by both the parties, has disposed of this application, which is unwarranted, since all the allegations and counter allegations made in the present proceedings require evidence.
125. Now, the question which arises for consideration as to whether present appeal under Section 28 of Act is maintainable or not. Even assuming for arguments sake that appeal is not maintainable, but revision does lie and this appeal can be treated as revision.
126. When admittedly, civil suit was pending, then there was no occasion for Addl.District Judge to have admitted application under Section 151 CPC for consideration and as such, the order of Addl.District Judge in entertaining application under Section 151 CPC, was patently without jurisdiction.
127. Lastly, the Addl. District Judge has made certain observations about the health of the his predecessor.
128. There was no occasion for Sh.V.K.Khanna, Addl.District Judge, to make such observations.
129. It has nowhere been pleaded by the respondent/applicant in application under Section 151 CPC, that predecessor of Sh.V.K.Khanna, Additional District Judge was not keeping good health or the judgment has not been signed by him.
131. A judicial officer has no authority or jurisdiction to comment upon the functioning and working of judicial officer of same rank, about the competency or physical condition of his successor. 132. Whether an Additional District Judge, who is subordinate to this Court, is competent to discharge his judicial functions or not, that is, for this Court to decide. Sh.V.K.Khanna, Additional District Judge has assumed powers of this Court and has made sarcastic remarks on the functioning, competency and physical condition of his predecessor, Sh.S.C.Mittal, Additional District Judge (since deceased) who was much senior in hierarchy to Sh.V.K.Khanna, Additional District Judge.
133. A judicial officer, has no business or right to compare the signatures of his predecessor on the judicial proceedings which have been made by him in discharge of his judicial functions. More so, when no pleadings whatsoever in respect thereof, have been made by any of the parties. The conduct of Sh.V.K.Khanna, Additional Districut Judge in making the above remarks about the physical conditions and functioning of Sh.S.C.Mittal, Additional District Judge, are highly improper and uncalled for.
137. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Inspecting Judges of Sh.V.K.Khanna, Additional District Judge, for taking appropriate action, against Sh.V.K.Khanna, Additional District Judge for his improper conduct, in making comments against his successor, which are against the judicial ethics and discipline.

Jiten Bhalla Vs Gaytri Bajaj on 08 Sep 2008

Citations : [2008 AD DEL 9 618], [2008 DRJ 106 651], [2008 DMC 2 503], [2008 SCC ONLINE DEL 1032]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143547006/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090c6de4b01497111771c8

https://www.legitquest.com/case/shri-jiten-bhalla-son-of-shri-rk-bhalla-v-ms-gaytri-bajaj-daughter-of-shri-anil/75C31

A challenge to this Order was dismissed at Supreme Court here.

Nirmal Singh and Ors Vs Tarsem Singh and Ors on 01 May 2014

Posted on January 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single-judge bench of Punjab High Court held as follows:

The High Court should not be stressed-out to deal with such a combined application compressed into one impugned order needlessly to unravel causing sheer wastage of its precious time in trying to separate what was so casually and mindlessly mixed-up in a cocktail by virtue of bad advice given by some trial lawyer to his client clubbing two disparate legal elements in a portmanteau application claiming amendment in pleadings and at the same time, in the same papers, seeking to introduce third parties in the pending litigation. Every minute of the High Court’s time squandered involves colossal expenditure which is incapable of calculation and therefore recompense. The reward of justice is none other than justice and time consumed in trying to meet it is alone its justification as an end to the means. The time required today for deciding cases of other litigants waiting desperately in the courtroom for their cause to be taken up and decided stands reduced. Poor legal advice given to a client may result in paralyzing many cases for years together causing incalculable injury to just causes needing prompt attention. But bad legal advice tendered leading to filing of interlocutory applications is a judicially unacceptable legal principle or ground itself for generosity in interference. This cannot operate as an exemption or a concession grantable to a litigant complaining that he has suffered because of ill advice to rescue an unsuspecting litigant from a predicament he may face. It has become almost a daily feature in court to wriggle out of the jamb to readily blame counsel without batting an eyelid and accept relief. If the Judge is expected to do his job so is the lawyer expected to assist the Court to the best of his ability. There is a presumption in law that a lawyer knows the law but there is no absolute presumption that a judge should know law. A judge is only called upon to balance the two sides of an argument presented before him.
But the bane is that the trial court unfortunately is not empowered to exercise summary jurisdiction of dismissal of misconceived, vexatious, frivolous, and mala fide applications designed only to obstruct the sound rhythm of a suit to achieve its target milestones within a reasonable time and bring it to fruition. Such power should deservedly be conferred on subordinate judges to deliver justice at the doorstep in limine without compromising the quality of justice delivered. But this is for Parliament to remedy and devise ways and means to achieve removal of obstructions designed to impede the life of a suit or wilt its many leaves.
Said Judge Learned Hand: “Thou shall not ration justice”
But time and energy spent in doing justice can be rationed. It can be rationalized to show better results. The trial courts can contribute in a large measure to this end by finding workable solutions thinking on their feet to do summary justice, a small example of what this case represents. The predecessor trial Judge should have returned the joint application in 2010 itself from the dais to its owner and saved valuable time of the court. He should have killed the weed before it grew. But now that has to be uprooted.
For the variety of reasons recorded above, I find no cogent ground to support the impugned order dated April 4, 2013 or to sustain it and to the contrary I think it is eminently fit to be set aside to avoid a failure of justice. It is accordingly so ordered. The matter is remitted back to the trial Judge for a re-consideration. The respondent/plaintiff is left free to file two separate applications, one under Order 6 Rule 17 and one under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC within a fortnight from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The defendants would file replies thereto within the next fortnight. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge would take up both the applications separately and proceed to dispose them of on merits after hearing the parties after following the rule “costs must follow the event” to its true import and meaning to compensate the aggrieved litigant of the precious time lost in what could have been resolved without any prolonged agony.

Nirmal Singh and Ors Vs Tarsem Singh and Ors on 01 May 2014

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.legitquest.com/case/nirmal-singh-and-others-v-tarsem-singh-and-others/1838C4

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Judiciary Antics

Gopika Jayan and Anr Vs Faisal on 22 Jun 2022

Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020

Santhanam and Anr Vs State and Anr on 20 Sep 2021

Kade Kumar Swamy Vs Agam Pandu and 6 Ors on 02 Dec 2020

Gulfasha Vs State of Maharashtra on 28 Jun 2021

Nasruddin Mian Vs State of Bihar on 21 Jun 2021

Krishna Prasad Verma (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs State of Bihar on 26 Sep 2019

Archana Deepak Jatkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2021

Nirmal Singh and Ors Vs Tarsem Singh and Ors on 01 May 2014