Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that “the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions” in the petitions contesting the maintainability of 482 CrPC quash in DV Cases.

See Page 5, last para…

Needless to say if any appeal is filed by any of the petitioners herein, they can file for the period beyond one month with application invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the learned Sessions Judge to entertain as it is of bonafide prosecution in this Court instead of proceeding by appeal before the Court of Sessions, within the sweep of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Further, if any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions.

Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015

Citations: [2015 SCC ONLINE HYD 293], [2016 CCC 1 49], [2015 ALD CRI 2 764]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110893807/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e53212e46571b56b1ea70aa

http://document.manupatra.com/ap/2001-2004/ap2015/AP20151408152002271.htm

The bulk of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 1990 is available here.

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that, it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A.

From Para 3,

After going through her evidence it does not appear that she has conclusively established that the beating and harassment was with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal demands of the non-applicants. The trial Court has discussed this aspect at some length and has recorded a finding that offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, is not established. I do not see any reason to interfere with the same in my revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the complainant, particularly when the State has not challenged the impugned order.

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April, 1989

Gudavalli Murali Krishna And Ors. Vs Gudavalli Madhavi And Anr. on 30 January, 2001

Posted on September 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of AP has held that, the High Court, by exercising its inherent powers can quash the F.I.R. or Investigation in appropriate cases following the tests laid down in Bhajanlal’s case by exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Gudavalli Murali Krishna And Ors. Vs Gudavalli Madhavi And Anr. on 30 January, 2001

V.P. Dhanesh Vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2003

Posted on September 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand held that Dowry demand allegation after a considerable amount of time after marriage is not maintainable for the simple reason that they do not remain as bride and bridegroom as mentioned in the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Here is the case details from ecourts site.

V.P. Dhanesh Vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2003

Amrendu Jyoti And Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 19 December, 2006

Posted on September 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment of Chhattisgarh High court, IPC 498A was held to be a continuing offence as the allegations of mental cruelty happened over a telephone call, at a place which actually does not have jurisdiction. Funny.

Anyways this was turned around by hon’ble Supreme Court in 2014. Go here to read judgment.

Amrendu Jyoti And Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 19 December, 2006

C.H. Siva Prasad and Ors Vs State of A.P. on 13 August 1998

Posted on September 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In line with Gurbaksh Singh case here, AP High Court also delivered this judgment holding that

From Para 21,

It is also required to notice that an application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC as the case may be can be filed only after the arrest of the accused person or detained without a warrant. It would not be possible for any accused to file any application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC while the operation of the order under Section 438 Cr.PC is in force. Under those circumstances, the question of directing the accused person to apply for and obtain a regular bail even while the directions issued in exercise of the power under Section 438 Cr.PC are in operation may become difficult and such application may not be maintainable.

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, then held,

In Para 22,

On an analysis and a close reading of the decisions referred to above, the following propositions would emerge:
(1) This Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.PC may direct the release of the accused person in a given case only for a specific period and direct the accused person to apply for and obtain regular bail. This would necessarily mean that the operation of the order would come to an end immediately after the specified time and the accused person has to necessarily surrender or get arrested so as to enable the accused person to file an application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC as the case maybe.

(2) This Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power and discretion under Section 438 of the Code can restrict the operation of directions issued under the said provision at the initial stage and extend the same until further orders;

(3) The Court exercising the power and jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code is entitled to issue necessary directions directing release of the accused person in the event of his or her arrest without specifying any period; and

(4) The power and jurisdiction of this Court or Court of Session under Section 438 of the Code is not limited or circumscribed in any manner whatsoever requiring to limit the operation of the directions to release the accused person in the event of his or her arrest.

C.H. Siva Prasad And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 13 August, 1998

Citations: [2

Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999

Posted on September 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court which held that,

(1) The S.H.O. has statutory authority under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any cognizable case for which an F.I.R. is lodged.
(2) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the Investigating Officer has no territorial jurisdiction.
(3) After investigation is over, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the F.I.R. has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly under Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.
This would be clear from the following discussion. Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Police Officer to investigate any cognizable offence. It reads as under :
” 156. Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case : –
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.”

FIR Quash is set aside and the IO at Delhi is allowed to continue investigation.

Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1841921/

Citations: [1999 (8) SCC 728], [AIR 1999 SCC (Crl) 1503]

Smt. Imlesh Vs Amit And Others on 20 February, 2013

Posted on May 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, a cunning Knife faked a ‘InLaws-set-fire-on-me’ drama and got rightly rapped by the Hon’ble High Court. The law point elucidate here is: in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.

From the Judgment

When giving benefit of acquittal to the respondents-accused, it was noticed by the trial Court that in the witness box, applicant- complainant PW-3 had made many improvements, so far as her allegations are concerned. It was also noticed that the burnt clothes of the complainant were not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. In the witness box it was stated by the complainant that after she was put on fire, she grabbed mobile phone from one of the culprits and made a telephonic call to her brother and thereafter, she doused the fire by sprinkling water upon her from a drum. On this aspect, deposition made by the complainant, was rightly discarded by the trial Court.

30% burns on exposed body parts would be visible to anyone and had there been any such apparent injury, the police would not have dismissed her stand for want of sufficient proof. Moreover, the infant daughter of the complainant was with her. If at all the complainant would have been badly burnt, she could hardly have handled an infant child.

The fact that neither Imlesh nor Satbir have referred to their visit to the police reflects their mala-fides.

The Investigating Officer further clarified that it was the accused who had informed the police on the telephone No.100 that Imlesh had been harassing them and wanted to set their house on fire. In pursuance of this, the concerned official had advised the accused to inform the Police Station Surajkund whereupon it was the accused who had informed this witness (PW-7) of the occurrence telephonically that Imlesh was trying to set their house on fire. When the police reached the spot, no one was present there and part of the house had already been burnt. The neighbours had disclosed to the Investigating Officer that it was Imlesh who had put certain goods on fire in the house and had thereafter run away.

The trial Judge has thrashed the entire evidence in a proper manner and the opinion formed is as per evidence on record.

Smt._Imlesh_vs_Amit_And_Others_on_20_February,_2013

Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 2002

Posted on April 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is from Punjab and Haryana High Court in a 498A, 406 case.

IPC 498a Not Made Out

The Civil Court in the divorce proceedings filed by Complainant has also held that the allegations levelled against the defendants that they had demanded the dowry and harassed the complainant have been found false.

This Court is of opinion that in such a short span of 13 days, demand of dowry, as has been alleged by the petitioner, could not have been made by the respondent or his family members.

This Court is conscious of a fact that in these days when the number of divorce petitions are increasing in our society, this is one of the easiest allegations to level against the husband by the wife. It is easy to level it but it is very difficult to prove the same.

Judge has allowed the divorce on the ground that the marriage between the parties is a dead marriage.

IPC 406 Not Made Out

There is no specific allegation in the complaint regarding the entrustment of dowry articles as to whom the articles were given. When there is no specific allegation, the charge cannot prove.

Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 2002

Citations: [2

Bomma Ilaiah Vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By Public on 9 January, 2003

Posted on April 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is an interesting Judgment of AP High Court whereby the accused is acquitted under IPC 498A (max punishment is 3 years) but convicted under IPC 325 (max punishment is 7 years) !!

Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code

325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Bomma Ilaiah Vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By Public on 9 January, 2003

Citations: [2

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced

Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989

Gudavalli Murali Krishna And Ors. Vs Gudavalli Madhavi And Anr. on 30 January, 2001

V.P. Dhanesh Vs State Of Jharkhand on 23 September, 2003

Amrendu Jyoti And Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 19 December, 2006

C.H. Siva Prasad and Ors Vs State of A.P. on 13 August 1998

Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 5 October, 1999

Smt. Imlesh Vs Amit And Others on 20 February, 2013

Krishan Jeet Singh Vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 2002

Bomma Ilaiah Vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By Public on 9 January, 2003