Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the procedure to be follow in Delhi by Police in regards to the CrPC Section 41A.
Tag: Landmark Case
State Of Punjab and Anr Vs Jalour Singh and Ors on 18 January, 2008
Citations : [2008 SCC CIV 1 669], [2008 SCC CRI 1 524], [2008 SCC L&S 1 535], [2008 AIR SC 1209], [2008 KLJ 1 887], [2008 AIC SC 64 262], [2008 JT 2 83], [2008 SCALE 2 52], [2008 RCR CIVIL 1 857], [2008 AIR SC 0 1196], [2009 TAC 1 819], [2008 ALLSCR 0 692], [2008 SCJ 2 95], [2008 SCC 3 660], [2008 TNMAC 1 244], [2008 KHC 2 89], [2008 AIOL 112], [2008 ARBLR SC 1 257], [2008 SCR 1 922], [2008 MLJ SC 5 311], [2008 AIR SCW 1196], [2008 KLT SC 2 236], [2008 ACJ SC 2874]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/483834/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae95e4b0149711414361
Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 27 March, 2014
In this landmark judgment, a 2-judge Bench of Apex Court has held that a person can approach either High Court of a Sessions Court for a Regular bail under 439 CrPC, instead of exhausting the remedy of approaching the Magistrate Court.
News about this judgment:
Citations: [2014 AIOL 181], [2014 CRIMES SC 2 161], [2014 SCALE 4 215], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 2 313], [2014 SUPREME 3 285], [2014 AIR SC 2115], [2014 SLT 3 540], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 416], [2014 CRLJ SC 2245], [2014 JT 4 486], [2014 JCC SC 2 1264], [2014 AIR SC 1745], [2014 SCC 16 623], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 257], [2014 KERLT 2 809], [2014 CRILJ 2245], [2014 NCC 1 570], [2015 NCC 1 798]
Other Source Links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102030495/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af48e4b01497114160a8
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
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors Vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
This is the landmark judgment of Supreme Court, where in Hon’ble Justice Hans Raj Khanna has outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution and that only those amendments which tend to affect the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’ are subject to judicial review.
Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors Vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980
In this landmark judgment from Apex Court, two sections of Article 368 of Constitution of India are struck down as being invalid and unconstitutional, as they are against the basic structure of Constitution.
Citation : 1980 AIR 1789, 1981 SCR (1) 206
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/
Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 16 September, 2008
Following questions arise for consideration in this petition filed with Hon’ble Bombay High Court:
“Whether an order passed on an application made under section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) is appelable under section 29 of the said Act?
Whether an appeal will lie under section 29 of the said Act against every order passed by the learned Magistrate in proceedings initiated on the basis of an application made under section 12 of the said Act?
What is the scope of an appeal under section 29 of the said Act?”
From Para 25,
Thus, the conclusions which can be summarised are as under:
(i) An appeal will lie under section 29 of the said Act against the final order passed by the learned Magistrate under sub-section 1 of section 12 of the said Act;(ii) Under sub-section 2 of section 23 of the said Act, the learned Magistrate is empowered to grant an ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of sections 18 to 22 of the said Act. The power under sub-section 1 is of granting interim relief in terms of sections 18 to 22 of the said Act. Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.
(iii) An appeal will also lie against orders passed under sub section 1 and sub section 2 of the section 23 of the said Act which are passed by the learned Magistrate. However, while dealing with an appeal against the order passed under section 23 of the said Act, the Appellate Court will usually not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned Magistrate. The appellate Court will interfere only if it is found that the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or if it is found that the Court has ignored settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interim relief.
(iv) An appeal under section 29 will not be maintainable against purely procedural orders which do not decide or determine the rights and liabilities of the parties.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) & Anr Vs Union Of India And Ors. (Right to Privacy – Aadhaar Case)
This is the case in which Supreme Court held that Right to Privacy is a fundamental right as a part of Article 21, overruling M.P. Sharma And Ors. Vs Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi on 15 March 1954.
List of other case laws around Article 21 are here.
Kusum Lata Sharma Vs State and Anr on 2 September, 2011
This is the landmark judgment from Delhi High Court which held that “A mother who is being maltreated and harassed by her son would be an “aggrieved person”. If the said harassment is caused through the female relative of the son i.e. his wife, the said female relative will fall within the ambit of the “respondent‟. This phenomenon of the daughters-in-law harassing their mothers-in-law especially who are dependent is not uncommon in the Indian society.”
From Paras 9 and 10,
9. As a matter of fact, para ‘4(i)’ clarifies that even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single woman or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. A mother who is being maltreated and harassed by her son would be an “aggrieved person”. If the said harassment is caused through the female relative of the son i.e. his wife, the said female relative will fall within the ambit of the ‘respondent’. This phenomenon of the daughters-in-law harassing their mothers-in-law especially who are dependent is not uncommon in the Indian society.
10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, para ‘4’ of the Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be stated to have excluded a female relative of the male partner or a respondent and thus, a mother-in-law being an “aggrieved person” can file a complaint against the daughter-in-law as a respondent.
Citations : [2011 DMC 3 1], [2011 CRIMES 4 548], [2011 DLT 181 775], [2011 DRJ 126 298], [2011 ILR SUPP DELHI 4 435], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL 1 924], [2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 3710], [2011 AIC 106 846], [2011 AD DELHI 6 576]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1272794/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090db1e4b014971117a40b
Harbans Lal Malik Vs Payal Malik on 29 July, 2010
This is the Delhi High Court judgment from Shri. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, affirming that in a DV case, respondent can be other family member other than husband and are liable for relief mentioned under Monetary Relief u/s 20 of PWDV Act.
Punch Statement:
The girl and the parents of the girl knew it very well that they had selected a person for marriage with whom the girl was going to live abroad and the matrimonial home and the shared household was going to be outside India. This act of marrying a person settled abroad is a voluntary act of the girl. If she had not intended to enjoy the fat salary which boys working abroad get and the material facilities available abroad, she could have refused to marry him and settled for a boy having moderate salary within India. After having chosen a person living abroad, putting the responsibility, after failure of marriage, on the shoulders on his parents and making them criminals in the eyes of law because matrimonial ties between the two could not last for long, does not sound either legally correct or morally correct. How can the parents of a boy who is working abroad, living abroad, an adult, free to take his own decisions, be arrayed as criminals or respondents if the marriage between him and his wife failed due to any reason whatsoever after few years of marriage. If the sin committed by such parents of boy is that they facilitated the marriage, then this sin is equally committed by parents of the girl. If such marriage fails then parents of both bride and groom would have to share equal responsibility. The responsibility of parents of the groom cannot be more. Shelter of Indian culture and joint family cannot be taken to book only relatives of boy. A woman’s shared household in India in such cases is also her parents’ house where she lived before marriage and not her in-laws’ house where she did not live after marriage.
Another one here:
I am surprised that the Courts below did not give weight to the judgment of New Jersey where parties lived for 7 ½ years but assumed jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act because of the pure temporary residence (as pleaded by her) of wife in Delhi who is otherwise resident of Hissar. The Court of ASJ wanted that the order of the Court of MM should be honoured by the US while the Court here would not honour a decree of Court of USA where the husband and wife lived for 7 ½ years.
