Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019

Posted on April 9, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

A clear attempt to link circumstances to a pre-judged conclusion by Hon’ble CJ of India himself. At best, this is just an attempt to let go off one of the many grounds husband’s can take in their Discharge and Quash petitions, going against such landmark precedents.

If this assumption is allowed to continue, ablanaris will claim, her hubby dear comes in her dreams and molests, threatens, harasses, violates her & thereby it is a continuing offence as per Black&White Dictionary and attracts 179 CrPC squarely, and consequently your’s truly will wag their tails (heads may be) to it too.

One Gem from this Judgment:

Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony.

Alright. Little bit of difficulty in travel involved. We will use 20 other grounds, Mr. CJI. We also have clubbing of cases judgment and many more judgments on our side.

Frankly speaking, one has to see the caveat laid by Supreme Court in this judgment. Only when the Prosecution can establish that there was threat to the life and/or limb of the knife due to which the false case if institute out side the Jurisdiction, where the alleged offence has happened as mentioned in the Complaint, this judgment can be gainfully invoked.

The Key element is this “compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents“. As long as the Prosecution documents do not prima facie exhibit the above criteria, the ground of Territorial Jurisdiction is still a valid ground to see Discharge or Quash from a false case.

Go here.

Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019

My Note:

This is a bad judgment because, we all know the complainant may invoke Zero FIR at her place of residence/parental/shelter home which may be transferred to the location where there is actual territorial jurisdiction to the alleged offence. Or the parents or relative or any good Samaritan can file a report under sec 154(1) to a nearby police station, and again that PS has to register a Zero FIR. Moreover, the complaint’s case is fought by the State via Public Prosecutor and the Chief examination is done via affidavit these days and even that may be one of the instances when the complaint has to appear before Court. Due to technological advances which are expedited by COVID-19 pandemic, even the oath taken at such instance can be made via Video conference. Even the Cross can be conducted via Video conference.

Then what was the need to muddle the sacred principle of territorial jurisdiction enshrined under CHAPTER XIII provisions of Cr.P.C.?

Citations: [2019 SCC 5 384], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 493], [2019 AIR SC 1790], [2019 KLJ 2 601]

Varsha Kapoor Vs UOI & Ors. on 3 June, 2010

Posted on January 2, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

A very ‘convoluted 2-classes of aggrieved person‘ interpretation of respondent in a DV Act case by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this dismissed writ petition.

Just read it, it is revolting. It doesn’t even occur to them that a daughter-in-law can and does affect cruelty on mother-in-law. It is so sad.

From Para 29,

For centuries, jurists and legal scholars have debated about the functions of law, viz., why do we need law, and what does it do for society? More specifically, what functions does the law perform? Though there may not be unanimity amongst the scholars of law on the precise functions, it is widely recognized that the recurring theme of law includes; (i) social control, (ii) disputes settlement and (iii) social engineering. Though there are many methods of social control, law is considered one of the forms of former social control by prescribing social norms within which individuals/members of the society have to behave. Likewise, law discharges the functions of disputes settlement, i.e., disputes are settled by application of the law of land providing for legal rights and obligations. Apart from these, many scholars are of the view that principal function of law in modern society is social engineering (with which we are concerned here). It refers to purposive, application and direct social change initiated, guided and supported by law.

From Para 30,

Though it will remain a matter of never ending debate as to whether law brings social change or social changes in society brings law (i.e. whether law “leads” change or “follows” change), it has to be accepted that many times laws are passed to ensure normative changes in the society. Abolition of Sati Pratha by an appropriate enactment is a sterling example. In broad terms, “change” is of two types: continuous or evolutionary and discontinuous or revolutionary. The most common form of change is continuous. This day-to-day incremental change is a subtle, but dynamic, factor in social analysis.

From Para 31, peaks of convoluted and rust-ridden mindsets, yukk

The journey from enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to Amendment in IPC by incorporating Section 498A and 304B to the passing of DV Act is aimed at bringing desirable and much needed social change in this particular sphere. Therefore, Courts are required to give an interpretation which subserves the aforesaid purpose with which the law is enacted. The contention advanced by the petitioner, which negates the right given to women by this legislation has to be eschewed.

Here petitioner is also a woman but judge says, her contention negates the right given to other women by legislation.

Woman mean young-daughter-in-law only.

Varsha Kapoor Vs UOI & Ors. on 3 June, 2010

[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”]

Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam And Ors on 8 January, 2004

Posted on July 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Defense of Accused:

Before the trial Court the accused persons put the plea that charge under Section 498-A was thoroughly misconceived as both Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC pre-suppose valid marriage of the alleged victim-woman with the offender-husband. It was required to be shown that the victim-woman was the legally married wife of the accused. Since it was admitted that the appellant had married during the lifetime of the wife of respondent no.1, what happened to his first marriage remained a mystery. Prosecution has failed to establish that it stood dissolved legally. Prosecution having failed to bring any material record in that regard, Section 498-A had no application.

From Para 18,

It would be appropriate to construe the expression ‘husband’ to cover a person who enters into marital relationship and under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerce her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in the relevant provisions Sections 304B/498A, whatever be the legitimacy of the marriage itself for the limited purpose of Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Such an interpretation, known and recognized as purposive construction has to come into play in a case of this nature. The absence of a definition of ‘husband’ to specifically include such persons who contract marriages ostensibly and cohabitate with such woman, in the purported exercise of his role and status as ‘husband’ is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304B or 498A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and aim of the legislations introducing those provisions.

Finally,

Whether the offences are made out is a matter of trial. The High Court was not justified in summarily rejecting the application for grant of leave. It has a duty to indicate reasons when it refuses to grant leave. Any casual or summary disposal would not be proper. (See State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh (2003 (8) Supreme 611). In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for hearing the matter on merits as according to us points involved require adjudication by the High Court. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.

Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam And Ors on 8 January, 2004

The acquittal of the accused happened at sessions court and a revision on this acquittal at High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed. Read it here.

Citations : [2004 AIR SC 1418], [2004 ALD CRI 1 452], [2004 CALLT SC 3 16], [2004 DMC SC 1 201], [2004 JT SC 1 177], [2004 KLJ 1 825], [2004 KLT SC 2 822], [2004 PLJR 2 64], [2004 SCALE 1 264], [2004 SCC 3 199], [2004 CRIMES SC 1 276], [2004 SCC CRI 699], [2004 SCR 1 378], [2004 SUPREME 1 355], [2004 KHC 0 668], [2004 RCR CRI 1 776], [2004 ACC 48 442], [2004 AIR SC 344], [2004 SRJ 2 49], [2004 CCR 1 163], [2004 JCRIC 1 209], [2004 CRJ 2 432], [2004 SLT 1 466], [2004 AIR SCW 344], [2004 CRLJ SC 892]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1180389/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae01e4b0149711412ad7

https://vlex.in/vid/crl-no-000025-000025-852345777

State of Karnataka Vs H.K. Nagaraj Kumar on 16 April, 2018

Posted on July 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is judgment from a Senior Civil Judge at Tumkur. See how he totally flouts the settled principles in law established by Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments that if accused produces evidence of sterling quality which destroys the case of prosecution, it can be looked into.

From Para 9,

Therefore, at this stage, only on the documents produced by the accused No.2 and No.3, they cannot be discharged for the offences alleged against them.

[google-drive-embed url=”https://drive.google.com/file/d/12EpzvzDQQtsSToJedzxWCONnhekZ_HPV/preview?usp=drivesdk” title=”State of Karnataka Vs H.K. Nagaraj Kumar on 16 April, 2018.pdf” icon=”https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf” width=”100%” height=”400″ style=”embed”]

See the Perjury success Mr Nagaraj got on his MIL here.

Ganipineni Sudharani Vs Ganipineni KrishnaMohan on 2 May, 2017

Posted on July 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is another BS judgment from same justice. Blatant misinterpretation of an earlier Supreme Court order to cause advantage to the party of Knife. Either by ignorance or for kickbacks received. God Knows

Shame on him.

Ganipineni Sudharani Vs Ganipineni KrishnaMohan on 2 May, 2017

Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao on 22 April, 2016

Posted on July 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Read this judgment to understand how the biased judges give liberal reliefs using gender-biased laws such as PWDV Act. In the process wrongly interpret the Delhi High Court judgment, wherein in reality High Court has declined giving maintenance to unscrupulous knife, our judge in this present case understood and interpreted it totally wrongly and to suit the Knife.

Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao on 22 April, 2016

The judgment cited in this order and wrongly interpreted is available here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law or Per Incuriam

Rupali Devi Vs State of UP and Ors on 09 April, 2019

Varsha Kapoor Vs UOI & Ors. on 3 June, 2010

Reema Aggarwal Vs Anupam And Ors on 8 January, 2004

State of Karnataka Vs H.K. Nagaraj Kumar on 16 April, 2018

Ganipineni Sudharani Vs Ganipineni KrishnaMohan on 2 May, 2017

Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao on 22 April, 2016