Preeti Gupta & Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another wonderful Supreme Court judgment delivered by Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandari ji, quashing the false IPC 498A case due to no specific allegations on the accused.

32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.
34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.
35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately, a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.”

Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010

Citation: [(2010) 7 SCC 667], [AIR 2010 SC 3363], [2010 SCC CR 3 473], [2010 SCALE 8 131], [2010 ALLMR CRI 0 2947], [2010 RCR CRI 4 45], [2010 CRLJ 0 4303], [2010 SCJ 6 609], [2010 AD SC 9 28], [2010 AIR SC 4975], [2011 MLJ CRI 2 89], [2010 JT 8 410], [2010 SLT 6 7], [2010 DMC 2 387], [2010 SUPREME 6 312], [2010 OCR 47 367], [2010 AIOL 501], [2010 ANJ SC 2 202], [2010 CRIMES SC 4 19], [2010 SCC 7 66], [2010 SCC CRI 3 473], [2011 AIC 99 149], [2010 GUJ LH 3 258], [2010 CRI LJ 4303]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46704/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee0e4b0149711414fdd

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The Supreme Court bench has delivered this landmark judgment calling out the cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya’ (truth) and `Ahimsa’ (non-violence) in Indian Society and exclaimed that,

“In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.“

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198000498/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aed8e4b0149711414dd7

Citations: [2010 SCC CRI 1 324], [2010 SCC 2 114], [2009 SCALE 14 473], [2010 AIC 85 13], [2010 AIR SC SUPP 116], [2010 AIR SC 0 50], [2010 SCJ 1 863], [2009 JT 15 201], [2009 SLT 9 167], [2009 AIOL 1294], [2009 SUPREME 8 485], [2010 ALL LJ 1 536], [2010 MADLJ 2 483], [2010 AIR SCW 50]

Index of perjury case laws here.

Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011

Posted on May 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the knife filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and approached the Hon’ble court with unclean hands and committed fraud upon the Hon’ble.

Key (Tricky) Highlight around applicability of CrPC but not Sec 468 CrPC:

24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 508.

Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011

Citations : [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 90], [2012 CRLJ SC 309], [2012 ALLMR CRI SC 369], [2011 CRIMES SC 4 51], [2011 SUPREME 6 181], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 129], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 1], [2011 SCC 12 588], [2011 SLT 6 434], [2011 AIOL 597], [2011 SCALE 9 295], [2011 JT 11 177], [2012 SCC CRI 2 614], [2011 ACR SC 3 3544], [2011 DMC SC 3 7], [2011 KCCR 4 3283], [2011 KLJ 3 40], [2011 KLT SN 4 69], [2011 NCC 2 544], [2011 SCR 10 557], [2011 UC 3 1758], [2012 SCC CIV 2 742]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1337239/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af03e4b014971141557d

Another previous judgment cited in this judgment is available here.

Index DV case laws is here.

Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya & vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2016

Posted on May 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Very nice judgment from High Court of Gujarat, wherein income (alimony given by Husband is income for tax purposes) hiding Knife is charged under sections 195 and 340 of CrPC.

Para 4,
The trial Court, on an application Exh.88 under sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by respondent No.2 on 13.5.2016, recorded the evidence on both the sides and directed the Registrar of Family Court to file an application before the Pradyuman Nagar police station under sections 191,192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

Para 8,
Learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has urged that it is very rare that the Court would go out of the way to hold that perjury has been committed and, in the instant case, it is quite obvious from the record that she had not revealed the fact that she is given permanent alimony of the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- so also all her income is shown under the Income-Tax Act.

Para 10,
Admittedly, this order has arisen on account of the affidavit given by the petitioner, wherein she declared herself a housewife having no source of income. However, she has admitted in her cross-examination that she has obtained Rs.4 lakhs from her previous husband at the time of taking divorce from him.

Para 16,
It also held that the bar would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in section 195(1)(b)(ii) have been committed with respect to a document, after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. If said offence is committed or given in evidence in Court, no complaint by Court would be necessary and a private complaint would be maintainable.

Para 18,
this Court has no reason to interfere as often it is found that the litigants coming before the Court chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence.

Para 19,
Laws which are otherwise in favour of the distressed wife when are sought to be misused by declaring completely incorrect facts and also by suppressing the material aspect, the trial Court at the time of considering the case found that the impact on the administration of justice would make it expedient for it to direct the prosecution.

Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya & vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2016

V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Posted on May 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court clearly defining the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition.

V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Citations : [1994 UJ SC 1 70], [1994 AIR SC 710], [1993 SCALE 4 488], [1994 SCC 1 337], [1994 BLJR 1 1], [1994 PUNJ LR 1 603], [1994 GLH 1 186], [1994 AN LT SC 1 14], [1994 BOMLR 96 360], [1994 ALT SC 1 14], [1994 ALR 23 77], [1994 LW 1 27], [1994 CIVILCC 558], [1993 JT SC 6 428], [1993 SUPP SCR 3 796], [1993 SUPPSCR 3 796], [1994 UJ 1 70], [1994 AIR 710]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1848484/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac91e4b014971140f2cb#20

The Index is here.

Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014

Posted on May 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment from Supreme Court asserting that ‘No automatic arrest’ in matrimonial cases. See here how this judgement has impacted the Bail-Jail industry.

“Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
(2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction;
(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

Most important.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may
extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014

Citations: [2014 DLT 210 599], [2014 GLR 2 1848], [2014 CRIMES SC 3 40], [2014 OLR SC 2 562], [2014 KARLJ SC 4 177], [2014 AD SC 7 697], [2014 KCCR 3 1977], [2014 JT 7 527], [2014 AIOL 411], [2014 MPHT SC 4 81], [2014 RLW SC 3 2171], [2014 CCR SC 3 144], [2014 WLN SC 3 28], [2014 AIC 140 118], [2014 MPJR SC 4 55], [2014 JLJR SC 3 313], [2015 LW CRL 1 318], [2014 ALT CRI 2 457], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 3 527], [2014 KHC 3 69], [2014 CRIMES SC 3 206], [2014 GLT SC 3 102], [2014 SLT 5 582], [2014 SCC 8 273], [2014 MLJ CRL SC 3 353], [2014 CRLJ SC 3707], [2014 AIR SCW 3930], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 532], [2014 ACR SC 3 2670], [2014 SCJ 6 219], [2014 CRILJ 3707], [2014 GUJLR 2 1848], [2014 JT 9 55], [2014 SUPREME 5 324], [2014 DMC SC 2 546], [2014 GUJ LH 2 547], [2014 KERLT 3 143], [2014 ILR 5507], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 3 362], [2014 SCALE 8 250], [2014 PLJR 3 314], [2014 AIR SC 2756], [2014 JCC SC 3 1529], [2014 KLJ 3 330], [2014 SCC CRI 3 449], [2014 SCSUPPL CHN 4 73], [2014 GLH 2 547], [2014 ALLCC 86 568], [2014 ILR KER 3 165]

Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

Posted on May 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment explaining the imprisonment of accused who fails to make the maintenance payments to Knife under Sec 125(3) of CrPC.

Noticing the peculiar situation where virtually the petitioner has been made to serve life sentence and the insensitivity of the Judge in the matter, we called for the lower Court records to examine for ourselves the facts because if what is being said by the Principal Judge, Family Court is to be accepted then the petitioner would virtually be serving a life sentence with no remission possible.

What is more scandalous is, as will be shown, petitioner has been kept in prison mechanically and that too for months even without any order of remand by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court.

The Code itself provides by Section 421 for warrant for levy of fine….
… A reference to Section 421 and the proviso would show that it clearly prohibits a person to be imprisoned in execution of warrant levying fine which would simply for recovery of the maintenance and, thus, there is no scope for issuance of any distress warrant for detaining a defaulter husband.

For the purposes of sentencing, the Code has provision in terms of Sections 29 and 30 thereof but the question remains that can there be a sentence straightway upon default being shown. In our view, no.

Unfortunately, in total disregard to the binding precedent, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court proceeded. The result is that the petitioner is being detained in custody ad infinitum which is against the statutory provisions.

Again, this is significant inasmuch as the maintenance being a monthly payment, for each month’s default, defaulter can be sentenced for a month’s imprisonment.

As seen above, the maintenance is to be fixed on monthly basis. The sentence has, accordingly, been limited to a month maximum for each breach.

We, therefore, hold that the detention of the petitioner cannot be justified and is contrary to the scheme as provided under Section 125 (3) of the Code. We have no option accordingly but to direct the immediate release of the petitioner, while quashing the order committing the petitioner to custody and subsequent orders of remand. The writ application is allowed.

Laljee Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

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

No territorial jurisdiction
No specific allegations on accused
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

Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

Posted on May 5, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat as part of a three-judge bench.

Intro

Marriage took place on 25/11/1998
Appellant No.1 left for USA on 1/7/1999
Complaint was filed on 6/2/2000 under Sec.498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Charge-sheet was filed on 8/6/2000
Divorce petition was filed by the complainant, which appears to have been granted ex parte on 12/7/2001
Complainant – Sukanya has remarried on 24/8/2002

Legal points enumerated by their Lordships are

No basis for making the allegations
No explanation for the delayed lodging of the complaint was offered.
Even a cursory perusal of the complaint shows that the case at hand falls within the category (7) of the illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal’s case
1. “Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

Sundar Babu & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

The reportable version of judgment is here.

Sundar_Babu_&_Ors_vs_State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_on_19_February,_2009

Citations : [2009 SCC 14 244], [2010 SCC CRI 1 1349], [2009 ECRN SC 2 1288], [2009 AIOL 261], [2009 JT 13 666], [2009 SCALE 5 1], [2009 SCR 3 326]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1091787/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd328607dba63d7e6c4d8

K.Srinivas Rao Vs D.A.Deepa on 22 February, 2013

Posted on May 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment of Supreme Court confirming the divorce degree granted by Family Court.

Intro

The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling chappals at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple got separated without consummation of the marriage and started living separately.

Later on

Knife filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC against the appellant-husband (C.C.No. 79/2009). It may be stated here that on 19/10/2009 the appellant-husband was acquitted in this case.

The appellant- husband was convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment. He and his parents were acquitted of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. His parents were acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. After this judgment the respondent-wife and her parents filed a complaint in the High Court saying that since the appellant-husband was convicted he should be dismissed from service. Similar letters were sent to the High Court by the maternal uncle of the respondent-wife

In Para 22,

The statement that the mother of the appellant-husband asked her to sleep with his father is bound to anger him. It is his case that this humiliation of his parents caused great anguish to him. He and his family were traumatized by the false and indecent statement made in the complaint. His grievance appears to us to be justified.

That this statement is false is evident from the evidence of the mother of the respondent-wife, which we have already quoted. This statement cannot be explained away by stating that it was made because the respondent-wife was anxious to go back to the appellant-husband. This is not the way to win the husband back. It is well settled that such statements cause mental cruelty. By sending this complaint the respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband.

In Para 23,

The conduct of the respondent- wife in filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegation against her mother-in-law, in filing revision seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant-husband, in filing appeal questioning the acquittal of the appellant-husband and acquittal of his parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that he and his parents are put in jail and he is removed from his job. We have no manner of doubt that this conduct has caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband.

In Para 24,

Staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse’s life miserable.

Paras 25 and 26 talk about the death of the marriage.

the appellant-husband should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the respondent-wife as and by way of permanent alimony. In the result, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside.

Directions issue by the Apex Court

a) In terms of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Courts shall make all efforts to settle the matrimonial disputes through mediation. Even if the Counsellors submit a failure report, the Family Courts shall, with the consent of the parties, refer the matter to the mediation centre. In such a case, however, the Family Courts shall set a reasonable time limit for mediation centres to complete the process of mediation because otherwise the resolution of the disputes by the Family Court may get delayed. In a given case, if there is good chance of settlement, the Family Court in its discretion, can always extend the time limit.

b) The criminal courts dealing with the complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC should, at any stage and particularly, before they take up the complaint for hearing, refer the parties to mediation centre if they feel that there exist elements of settlement and both the parties are willing. However, they should take care to see that in this exercise, rigour, purport and efficacy of Section 498-A of the IPC is not diluted. Needless to say that the discretion to grant or not to grant bail is not in any way curtailed by this direction. It will be for the concerned court to work out the modalities taking into consideration the facts of each case.

c) All mediation centres shall set up pre-litigation desks/clinics; give them wide publicity and make efforts to settle matrimonial disputes at pre-litigation stage.

K. Srinivas Rao Vs D.A. Deepa on 22 Feb 2013

Click here to read the other judgments cited in this order.

Citations: [2013 SCC 5 226], [2013 AIOL 118], [2013 AIR SC 2176], [2013 AIR SC 1396], [2013 MHLJ SC 5 10], [2013 SUPREME 2 80], [2013 SLT 2 338], [2013 SCALE 2 735], [2013 BOMCR SC 3 129], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 2 232], [2013 JT 3 97], [2013 MPLJ SC 3 567], [2013 SCC CIV 2 775], [2013 SCC CRI 2 963], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 179], [2013 ALR 97 732], [2013 ALD 3 11], [2013 AIC 124 228], [2013 CHN 2 92], [2013 MAHLJ 5 102013 BLJ 3 379], [2013 DMC SC 1 458], [2013 ILR KER 1 813], [2013 JLJR 1 443], [2013 KHC 1 6472013 SCR 2 126], [2013 LW 2 883], [2013 PLR 171 149], [2013 CDR SC 1 161], [2013 AD SC 3 4582013 MLJ SC 3 852013 AWC SC 3 2462], [2013 WBLR SC 4 412], [2014 WLN SC 4 132], [2013 CGLRW 1 484], [2013 BOMCR 3 129], [2013 AIR SCW 1396], [2013 MAH LJ 5 10], [2013 MHLJ 5 10], [2013 ILR KERALA 1 813], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 232], [2013 JT SC 3 97], [2013 MPLJ 3 567]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14713882/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af30e4b0149711415c0f

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/k-srinivas-rao-vs-d-a-deepa

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Landmark Case

Preeti Gupta & Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya & vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2016

V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014

Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

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

Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

K.Srinivas Rao Vs D.A.Deepa on 22 February, 2013