Vijaya Rao Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 29 Jul 2005

Posted on October 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that, just by using the words/expressions used in statutes/provisions does not disclose any offence, when the necessary ingredients constituting Section 420 are conspicuously lacking in the complaint.

From Para 5,

5. Except using the expressions fraudulent misappropriation and mala fide intention, the allegations in the complaint do not at all disclose as to how the appellant can be found guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC. The ingredients constituting Section 420 are conspicuously lacking in the complaint. All the courts have failed to address themselves to the crucial question whether as far as the appellant is concerned any offence under Section 420 or for that matter any offence under Section 409 has been committed. Even going by the allegations in the complaint, allowing the criminal proceedings to go on against the appellant, would result in abuse of the process of the court. Hence, the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 10 of 2000 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar are quashed as against the appellant. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

Vijaya Rao Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 29 Jul 2005

Citations : [2006 CCR 2 122], [2006 SLT 3 405], [2005 SCC 7 69], [2005 SCC CRI 1600]

Others Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea89ae607dba38b6e4923a

Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020

Posted on October 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has overruled SR Batra landmark case law here on the aspect of ‘Shared Household‘ and held as following:

From Para 64,

64. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) held that wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household and a shared household would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The definition of shared household as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate that a shared household shall be one which belongs to or taken on rent by the husband. We have noticed the definition of “respondent” under the Act. The respondent in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be any relative of the husband. In event, the shared household belongs to any relative of the husband with whom in a domestic relationship the woman has lived, the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are satisfied and the said house will become a shared household. We are of the view that this court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) although noticed the definition of shared household as given in Section 2(s) but did not advert to different parts of the definition which makes it clear that for a shared household there is no such requirement that the house may be owned singly or jointly by the husband or taken on rent by the husband. The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) that definition of shared household in Section 2(s) is not very happily worded and it has to be interpreted, which is sensible and does not lead to chaos in the society also does not commend us. The definition of shared household is clear and exhaustive definition as observed by us. The object and purpose of the Act was to grant a right to aggrieved person, a woman of residence in shared household. The interpretation which is put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) if accepted shall clearly frustrate the object and purpose of the Act. We, thus, are of the opinion that the interpretation of definition of shared household as put by this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) is not correct interpretation and the said judgment does not lay down the correct law.

And from para 106,

106. The right is to be implemented by an order under Section 19, on an application filed under sub-section (1) of Section 12. Sub-section (2) of Section 17, however, contains an exception in the right granted by sub-section (2), i.e., “save in accordance with the procedure established by law”. Sub-section (2) of Section 17, thus, contemplates that aggrieved person can be evicted or excluded from the shared household in accordance with the procedure established by law. What is the meaning and extent of expression “save in accordance with the procedure established by law” is a question which has come up for consideration in this appeal. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendant in the Civil Court is covered by the expression “save in accordance with the procedure established by law”. We may further notice that the learned Magistrate while passing the interim order on 26.11.2016 in favour of the defendant on her application filed under Section 12 has directed that “the respondent shall not alienate the alleged shared household nor would they dispossess the complainant or their children from the same without orders of a Competent Court”. The Magistrate, thus, has provided that without the orders of Competent Court the applicant (respondent herein) should not be dispossessed. In the present case, interim order specifically contemplates that it is only by the order of the Competent Court respondent shall be dispossessed.

Note: Even though this may seem Topsy-turvy case law (Since it held SR Batra not correct law), not much is lost. Just arrange for alternate accommodation and make use of reliefs made available at reliefs from judiciary page and get the case closed in 2-3 months.

Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020

Citations : [2020 AIR SC 5397], [2020 SCALE 11 576], [2021 SCC CIV 1 325], [2020 KLT 6 208], [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 841], [2020 GUJ LH 4 416], [2021 SCC 1 414], [2021 SCC CRI 1 667], [2020 ALD 6 94]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/62368827/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f89406b9868c3226a8e7b51

The index page is here.

State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav and Anr on 10 Sep 2015

Posted on October 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

After giving some inputs to Law commission and Bar Council of India in this para,

16. The interest of justice may suffer if the counsel conducting the trial is physically or mentally unfit on account of any disability. The interest of the society is paramount and instead of trials being conducted again on account of unfitness of the counsel, reform may appear to be necessary so that such a situation does not arise. Perhaps time has come to review the Advocates Act and the relevant Rules to examine the continued fitness of an advocate to conduct a criminal trial on account of advanced age or other mental or physical infirmity, to avoid grievance that an Advocate who conducted trial was unfit or incompetent. This is an aspect which needs to be looked into by the concerned authorities including the Law Commission and the Bar Council of India.

Supreme Court passed these reasons for not recalling a witness

29. We may now sum up our reasons for disapproving the view of the High Court in the present case:
(i) The trial court and the High Court held that the accused had appointed counsel of his choice. He was facing trial in other cases also. The earlier counsel were given due opportunity and had duly conducted cross-examination. They were under no handicap;
(ii) No finding could be recorded that the counsel appointed by the accused were incompetent particularly at back of such counsel;
(iiii) Expeditious trial in a heinous offence as is alleged in the present case is in the interests of justice;
(iv) The trial Court as well as the High Court rejected the reasons for recall of the witnesses;
(v) The Court has to keep in mind not only the need for giving fair opportunity to the accused but also the need for ensuring that the victim of the crime is not unduly harassed;
(vi) Mere fact that the accused was in custody and that he will suffer by the delay could be no consideration for allowing recall of witnesses, particularly at the fag end of the trial;
(vii) Mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall the witnesses;
(viii) There is no basis for holding that any prejudice will be caused to the accused unless the witnesses are recalled;
(ix) The High Court has not rejected the reasons given by the trial court nor given any justification for permitting recall of the witnesses except for making general observations that recall was necessary for ensuring fair trial. This observation is contrary to the reasoning of the High Court in dealing with the grounds for recall, i.e., denial of fair opportunity on account of incompetence of earlier counsel or on account of expeditious proceedings;
(x) There is neither any patent error in the approach adopted by the trial court rejecting the prayer for recall nor any clear injustice if such prayer is not granted.

Citations : [2016 ACR SC 1 142], [2016 ALT CRL AP 1 167], [2016 MPJR 1 1], [2016 NCC 1 393], [2016 SCC 2 402], [2016 SCJ 1 93], [2015 AIR SC 3501], [2015 AD SC 10 165], [2015 ALLCC 91 640], [2015 BOMCR CRI 4 366], [2015 CCR SC 3 468], [2015 CRILJ 4640], [2015 CRIMES SC 4 1], [2015 JLJR 4 97], [2015 PLJR 4 258], [2015 RCR CRIMINAL 4 312], [2015 RLW SC 4 3271], [2015 SCALE 9 649], [2015 UC 3 1794], [2016 SCC CRI 1 510], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 799], [2015 AIC 155 68], [2015 CRI LJ 4640]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33982557/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b391e561097e45a4e3ea

P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka on 16 Apr 2002

Posted on October 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Guidelines around fixed timelines given by earlier SC judgments were deleted in this 5-Judge judgment in respect of u/s 468 CrPC

P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka on 16 Apr 2002

Concurring opinion from Justice Doraiswamy Raju.

P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka on 16 Apr 2002 (DoraiswamyRaju J)

Citations : 2002 MHLJ SC 3 1452002 SUPREME 3 2602002 SCC 4 5782002 SCALE 3 4972002 MPLJ SC 3 32002 CRLJ SC 25472002 AIR SC 18412002 BOMCR CRI SC 8592002 AIR SC 18562002 SCR 3 602012 SCC 9 4302002 PLJR 3 2292002 KLT SC 2 1892002 WLN 4 7512002 CRIMES SC 2 2002002 JCR SC 2 2732002 RCR CRIMINAL 2 5532002 OLR 1 6972002 SCR 3 682002 UC 2 2072002 JT SC 4 922002 ALD CRI 1 7922002 GLH 2 5182002 ACR SC 2 13822002 CRILJ 25472002 GLR 2 15492002 SCC CRI 8302002 MHLJ 3 1452002 AIR SCW 18412002 MPLJ SC 3

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/516669/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adb4e4b014971141208d

Ambika Prasad and Anr Vs State (Delhi Administration) on 21 Jan 2000

Posted on October 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held as follows when Cross-examination of a Prosecution witness was adjourned/deferred to over 1 year.

It is also to be pointed out that PW4 Vikram Singh (informant) who had lodged FIR immediately was under constant threat and was compelled not to speak the truth despite the fact that he was the brother of deceased. Other witnesses also turned hostile including PW6 Prem Singh son of Pratap Singh and PW8 Rattan Lal, which indicates, as observed by the High Court, that accused party was stronger in terms of money power and muscle power. At this stage, we would observe that the Sessions Judge ought to have followed the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. of completing the trial by examining the witnesses from day to day and not giving a chance to accused to threaten or win over the witnesses so that they may not support the prosecution. It appears from the record that examination-in-chief of PW4 Vikram Singh was over on 06.2.1984. The counsel representing Ambika Prasad requested the court that because of his uncles demise, he would not be in a position to cross-examine the witness and, therefore, recording of further cross-examination might be adjourned. Thereafter, the witness was cross-examined in the month of July, 1985. In our view, this is highly improper. Even if the request for adjournment of the learned counsel for the accused was accepted, the cross-examination ought not to have been deferred beyond two or three days.

Ambika Prasad and Anr Vs State (Delhi Administration) on 21 Jan 2000

Citations : [2000 ACR SC 1 282], [2000 AIR SC 718], [2000 ALD CRI 1 460], [2000 CRI LJ 810], [2000 JT SC 1 273], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 1 64], [2000 SCALE 1 219], [2000 SCC 2 646], [2000 SCR 1 342], [2000 SCC CRI 522], [2000 DLT 83 476], [2000 AIR SC 719], [2000 SCC 2 464], [2000 ACC 40 462], [2000 SCO 2 646], [2000 AIR SC 253], [2000 CRIMES SC 2 63], [2000 SUPREME 2 633], [2000 CRLJ 106 810], [2000 CCR 1 130], [2000 RCR CRIMINAL 1 643], [2000 SCJ 2 472], [2000 SLT 1 442], [2000 SRJ 2 235], [2000 JCC SC 1 197], [2000 SCC SC 1 197], [2000 CRIMES 2 63], [2000 CRLJ SC 810], [2000 RECENTCR 1 643], [2000 AIR SCW 253]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151141/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad6ee4b014971141165e

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020

Posted on October 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Single Judge discussed the admissibility of evidence in cases filed in Family Courts u/s 14 and also dispelled the false notion that if a spouse obtains an evidence illegally (by installing a CCTV in this case), such act would not be violative of the other spouse’s right to privacy. And also nothing in Constitution of India prohibits such evidence.

From Para 37,

37. While consistency in law is of utmost importance and law must get its full play regardless of the fact situation, this court must record the unease it feels with regard to a certain aspect that has arisen in this matter. Marriage is a relationship to which sanctity is still attached in our society. Merely because rules of evidence favour a liberal approach for admitting evidence in court in aid of dispensation of justice, this should not be taken as approval for everyone to adopt any illegal means to collect evidence, especially in relationships of confidence such as marriage. If the right to adduce evidence collected by surreptitious means in a marital or family relationship is available without any qualification or consequences, it could potentially create havoc in people’s personal and family lives and thereby in the society at large. For instance, if a spouse has the carte blanche to install a recording device in a bedroom or other private space or to adopt any means whatsoever to collect evidence against the partner, even if in circumstances of matrimonial discord, it would be difficult to foresee the length to which a spouse may go in doing so ; and such possibility would itself spell the end of the marital relationship. It is not uncommon for spouses to continue living together, even in matrimonial strife, for years on-end. So, while law must trump sentiment, a salutary rule of evidence or a beneficent statutory provision, must not be taken as a license for illegal collection of evidence.

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170404652/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5efb8cc29fca196e33048e01

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deepti-kapur-versus-kunal-julka

[S. 14 of Family Courts Act] Del HC | In a contest between right to privacy and right to fair trial, both of which arise under expansive Art. 21, right to privacy may have to yield to right to fair trial

Note: The nut case went to Supreme Court and the SC kicked out the SLP.

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 10 May 2022

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Atluri Brahmanandam (D) Thr.Lrs Vs Anne Sai Bapuji on 18 Nov 2010

Posted on October 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is regarding adoption criteria under section 10() of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, which reads as follows,

10. Persons who may be adopted.―No person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:―
(i) he or she is a Hindu;
(ii) he or she has not already been adopted;
(iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who are married being taken in adoption;
(iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption.

From Para 16,

16. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recognized such a custom among the “Kamma” community of Andhra Pradesh of taking in adoption of a person even above the age of 15 years of age and has held the same to be legal and valid.

Atluri Brahmanandam (D) Thr.Lrs Vs Anne Sai Bapuji on 18 Nov 2010

Citations: 2010 JT 12 4412011 AIR SC 5452010 CTC 6 5552010 SCJ 8 5992011 MLJ 1 7422011 ALT 1 312010 CLT 4 4612010 SLT 8 3982011 CUTLT SUPPL 8222010 AIOL 7842010 ALLMR SC 6 9792011 RCR CIVIL SC 2 972010 SCALE 12 1572010 SCC 14 4662010 SUPREME 7 8682012 SCC CIV 1 6442010 ALR 83 8812010 AIC 96 92011 CHN 1 217

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/663319/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aedae4b0149711414e5d

AP High Court Order here.

G Sarath Reddy Vs Union of India on 16 Jun 2020

Posted on September 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Even though this PIL petition was dismissed, the Division bench made a valuable comment, that Demanding of Justice from Concerned Authority in Govt is a Must before Seeking a Writ of Mandamus from a High Court.

Here is the snippet from the 2-page dismissal Order.

Besides this in para 7 of the writ petition a categorical statement has been made that the petitioner had not made any representation to the Government, meaning thereby, that the petitioner before making prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus by way of PIL, has not demanded justice before the authority concerned. This is the condition precedent for invoking Writ of Mandamus. The petitioner has not demanded any justice from the authority concerned. In the writ petition only vague submissions were made. Thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file amendment petition. Subsequently, one interlocutory application vide I.A.No.1 of 2020 was filed for amendment, which was itself defective and the same was dismissed on 24.02.2020. While dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2020, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with relevant documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after order, dated 24.02.2020, the petitioner has filed another interlocutory application vide I.A.No.2 of 2020, in which he made it clear to amend the writ petition by adding para 4(2) to para 4 (2) (k). In support of so called amendment petition, an affidavit has also been filed. Even after going through the amendment petitions, it is clear that no assertion has been made regarding approaching the authority concerned for demanding justice and directly this writ petition was filed. Considering the fact that the writ petition was filed with vague statements and also without approaching the authority concerned, we are of the opinion that such writ petition even as PIL may not be entertained.

G Sarath Reddy Vs Union of India on 16 Jun 2020

Recently, Allahabad HC also held this same rule here.

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Posted on September 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that for offences under 191 and 192 IPC, procedure under 340 CrPC has to be followed and perjury application for such offences cannot be turned into private complaints under 190 CrPC.

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 707], [(2020)20 SCC 1]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141105348/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f567c183321bc6ce2ef6f51

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13132

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/m-s-bandekar-brothers-pvt-ltd-anr-versus-prasad-vassudev-keni-etc-etc

Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Posted on August 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court gave this landmark reportable judgment regd delay condonation under Sec 5 of Limitation Act.

13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated
benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the
Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012

Citations: [2012 AIR SC 1506], [2012 ALR 91 879], [2012 AWC SC 3 2651], [2012 CALLT SC 3 65], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 20], [2012 CLT 113 1066], [2012 COMPCAS SC 174 387], [2012 CTC 2 240], [2012 ELT SC 277 289], [2012 GLH 1 670], [2012 ITR SC 348 7], [2012 JLJR 2 252], [2012 JCR SC 3 59], [2012 PLJR 2 371], [2012 RLW SC 3 2142], [2012 SCALE 2 782], [2012 SCC 3 563], [2013 SLJ SC 1 320], [2012 TAXMAN SC 207 163], [2012 SCC CIV 2 327], [2012 SCC CRI 2 580], [2012 SCC L&S 1 649], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 192], [2012 GUJ LH 1 670], [2012 AIC 112 69], [2012 CALLJ 2 93], [2012 CALLT 3 65], [2012 VST 54 188], [2012 SCT 2 269], [2012 SUPREME 2 244], [2012 CLT 1 338], [2012 AIR SC 0 1812], [2012 SCR 1 1045], [2012 SLT 2 312], [2012 JT 2 483], [2012 CHN SC 3 20], [2012 CCC 2 1], [2012 AIOL 103], [2012 SCC L&S 2 649], [2012 SCJ 3 873], [2012 SCC CR 2 580], [2012 LW 4 100], [2013 CPR 2 306], [2013 CPR 3 622], [2012 CUTLT 113 1066], [2012 SCR 0 500], [2012 TAXMANNCOM SC 20 347]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/20289457/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af18e4b014971141598b

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Legal Procedure Explained – Interpretation of Statutes

Vijaya Rao Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 29 Jul 2005

Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020

State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav and Anr on 10 Sep 2015

P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka on 16 Apr 2002

Ambika Prasad and Anr Vs State (Delhi Administration) on 21 Jan 2000

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka on 30 June 2020

Atluri Brahmanandam (D) Thr.Lrs Vs Anne Sai Bapuji on 18 Nov 2010

G Sarath Reddy Vs Union of India on 16 Jun 2020

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Office of the Chief Post Master Vs Living Media India Ltd on 24 February 2012