This case is regards to the Defamation plaint to be presented to the court of correct territorial jurisdiction.
Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha Vs Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd & Ors on 06 July, 2017[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”]
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that,
In which it is clearly stated that the police Officer has to question the victim girl, witnesses and contradict the witnesses and record the same. In the present case, the statement of the victim girl is concerned, the investigation officer stated in the charge sheet that he has contacted her and she confirmed the contents of the complaint given by the complainant. This Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to confirm the allegations mentioned in the complaint with the aggrieved person. This Court is of the view that the Officer, who is investigating the case, should record the statement as per the above said provisions. The first duty of the Investigating Officer is to find out the probability and truthfulness of her complaint unless otherwise the complainant’s version appraised by the Investigating Officer with the facts and circumstances of the case. Merely recording the statement as stated by the witnesses cannot be called as investigation. Investigation includes examination of the witnesses, confronting the witnesses on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer and also the version of the person who is aggrieved because of the said complaint. Mere reproduction of the complaint without proper examination cannot be called as statement recorded during investigation.
Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011
Case Details:
Rajesh Gutta Vs State of A.P. on 1 March, 2011 (Case Details)Citations: [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 5 452], [2011 CRLJ 3506], [2011 CRIMES 3 236], [2011 DMC 2 655], [2011 SCC ONLINE AP 562], [2011 CRI LJ 3506], [2012 E CR N 1 365]
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b10ee691cb22da6d1ec2 or https://mynation.net/docs/4921-2010/
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
This judgment should have been a reported one for it covers soo many good points to dustbin the complaint of the knife against the family members. Read the tags for more info.
Chandralekha Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 14 December, 2012
no te
This is the quash judgment from hon’ble high court of Karnataka, relying on Y Abhraham Ajith case, wherein it was held that when all allegations are stated to have happened at Vellore, Tamilnadu, Indiranagar police doesn’t have jurisdiction to file the FIR in Bengaluru, Karnataka.
G. Ramamoorthy Vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017
This is a short revision order from hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, wherein it was held that due to limitation restriction, the complaint was time barred and as such Magistrate was right in not taking cognizance of this case. The knife filed 498A case after separating from husband for 10-12 years!!!
State Vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017And the sweet response from the judge for the assertion that “498A IPC is a continuing offence” was, It is not so.
In this case, hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, has not done quash but ordered the case to be transferred to a different police station, as the original PS has no jurisdiction to investigate the case.
City Union Bank Vs Venugopal on 19 March, 2013In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that if there are no allegations of any offence taking place within the jurisdiction of this Court the falsely instituted IPC 498A/406 case was liable to be quashed.
In addition, it was held that,
At the same time in view of the judgment in Malkiat Singh’s case and further in Bimla Rawal & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2008(1) LRC 391 (Delhi) the challan is returned to the IO so that the same can be presented to the appropriate court in compliance with the provision of Section 170 Cr. P.C.
The cruel begging was rightly given back the ‘katora‘ to beg somewhere else where there is proper jurisdiction.
Manju Dutta Vs The State & Ors. on 29 January, 2013A detailed judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, categorically held that police at Nalagarh had no jurisdiction, as has/had been held hereinabove, proceedings if any pending before Courts at Nalagarh cannot be allowed to sustain and thereby the FIR dated 7.10.2014 as well as consequent proceedings are quashed and set aside
And the knife is at liberty to initiate action, if any, against the petitioners, on account of allegations contained in impugned FIR but at Jallandhar(Pb), either by lodging fresh FIR or by pursuing complaint filed by her at Women Cell Jallandhar.
Yadwinder Singh & Others Vs State Of H.P. & Others on 10 August, 2018I am going to start the first of the DV cases from West Godavari district with this case which resulted in a key judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that courts can allow amendments to the complaint so as to avoid multiplicity of cases and remove infirmities. Read it here. Later on, on 12 August, 2016, the trial court allowed some reliefs in this DV Case.
See the Bullshit reasoning given by magistrate
Admittedly, the parents of P.W.1 have no indigent status and they are financially stable. In such a case, it is likely that the parents of P.W.1 have paid the dowry amount to R.W.1 at the time of marriage. Dowry system is rampant in the Indian society even umpteen number of legislations. Therefore, the probability and plausibility factor coupled with the verbal testimony of P.W.1 impels the court to place implicit reliance upon the testimony of P.W.1 regardless of documentary evidence.
Some more BS sprinkled herein Para 9,
The substantial revelation from para 4 of the counter of R.W.1 is that “the complainant is a kondakapu which is schedule tribe by caste and with a lenient view the respondent married the complainant without taking dowry amount”. This material drives home the message that R.W.1 married P.W.1 on his own volition without any compulsion. On the other hand, it is not the case of the R.W.1 that P.W.1 disguised her caste. In such a case as to why R.W.1 averred in the counter that P.W.1 is a scheduled tribe by caste. In this context, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent has workable force and this averment is made in the counter with intent to inflict psychological trauma, sorrow, agony and pain to P.W.1.
Just because RCR under Section 9 of HMA is not filed, judge thinks offer of husband to continue marital ties if knife comes back, is highly pretentious and fake.
It is specifically pleaded in para 20 of the counter that R.W.1 would accord warm welcome to P.W.1, if she comes and joins him. In this context, the counsel for the respondent questioned P.W.1 whether she is willing to join R.W.1, on which she emphatically denied. If in truth R.W.1 has any transparent honesty and righteousness to continue the marital tie without snapping, he would have invoked the coercive provision as envisaged under section 9 of Hindu Marriages Act i.e., for restitution of conjugal rights, however R.W.1 is very much indifferent and inactive and did not offer any solemn explanation as to why he failed to resort to the provisions of section 9 of Hindu Marriages Act. This material makes me to understand that the offer of R.W.1 to continue the marital bond with P.W.1 is highly pretentious and fake.
In contrary, read this BS, when it was questioned, why knife didn’t file IPC 498A criminal case from Para 17 and 18,
The third limb of the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is that, if in truth P.W.1 suffered low marital happiness on account of cruelty alleged to have been perpetrated by the respondent, surely she would have set the criminal machinery in motion under section 498-A IPC and this circumstance clearly points out that P.W.1 is guilty of matrimonial misconduct. In this contextual facts, regard must be had to the material forth came from the cross examination of R.W.1. During cross examination R.W.1 affirms that “He deposed in O.P. No.22/2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court that P.W.1 is tradition ridden woman and always prays the almighty and she is a big devotee“.
In general the woman who are orthodox and have a firm belief over traditions and old customs may not turn impulsive and aggressive and may not resort to criminals proceedings against their husbands believing that their family reputation will be marred irretrievably and irreplaceably. This material gives some formidable feedback to the court that P.W.1 is highly traditional lady and has traditional approach towards life and due to which reason she might not have lodged complaint against the respondent under section 498-A IPC.
One rule for husband and another philosophy for knife.
Another gem of dogshit here from Para 19. Enjoy…
P.W.1 candidly admits in the cross examination that “ I filed application under section 13 of Hindu marriages Act for seeking the dissolution of marriage on the file of Principle Senior Civil Judge, Eluru and the same was ended in dismissal”. In the normal scheme of things, no married woman who have grown up and marriageable children would not venture to walkout from the marriage and gets her marital life ruined, unless the home atmosphere in the matrimony is uncongenial. This material makes me cognizant that R.W.1 resorted to domestic violence in the shared household.
No application of mind, why this S13 application if dismissed!!!
From Para 20, this is the observation: From this material, it appeals to me that P.W.1 is very sensitive and gullible lady.
Read Para 23 for more fun-filled entertainment.
Kunapureddy Swarna Kumari Vs Kunapureddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Naidu on 12 August, 2016
Now, read the appeals filed by both husband (here) and wife (here).
This quash judgment from Andhra Pradesh High Court, albeit dismissed, has some legal points discussed apart from citing good earlier judgments which clarified the position of law in case of out of jurisdiction cases.
Observation
In the present case, the second respondent was driven out from the matrimonial home from Mumbai. The second respondent went to the house of her parents at Tenali. In view of Manish Ratan (2 supra), Tenali Courts do not get territorial jurisdiction merely because the second respondent returned to Tenali. However, in view of Geeta Mehrotra (5 supra), where the Supreme Court held that the question of territorial jurisdiction shall be determined by the trial Court and not in a petition u/s.482Cr.P.C., I consider that this petition is misconceived.
Next Step in Summary
Sivangala Thandi Deepak & Others Vs The State of A.P. on 11 July 2014File the discharge petition at trial court before charged/issues are filed against the accused.
Judgments cited in this judgment
