Chandralekha Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 14 December, 2012

Posted on September 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

From Para 8,

….

However, after a careful perusal of the FIR and after taking into consideration the attendant circumstances, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by respondent 2 insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3 deserves to be quashed. The allegations are extremely general in nature. No specific role is attributed to each of the appellants. Respondent 2 has stated that after the marriage, she resided with her husband at Ahmedabad. It is not clear whether appellants 1, 2 and 3 were residing with them at Ahmedabad. The marriage took place on 9/7/2002 and respondent 2 left her matrimonial home on 15/2/2003 i.e. within a period of seven months. Thereafter, respondent 2 took no steps to file any complaint against the appellants. Six years after she left the house, the present FIR is lodged making extremely vague and general allegations against appellants 1, 2 and 3. It is important to remember that appellant 2 is a married sister-in-law. In our opinion, such extra ordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about the truthfulness of allegations made by respondent 2 against appellants 1, 2 and 3, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt that by making such reckless and vague allegations, respondent 2 has tried to rope them in this case along with her husband. We are of the confirmed opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against appellants 1, 2 and 3 pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of process of law. In the interest of justice, therefore, the FIR deserves to be quashed insofar as it relates to appellants 1, 2 and 3.

Chandralekha Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 14 December, 2012

Citations: [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 1 577], [2012 AIOL 2078], [2013 CRLJ SC 3644], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 969], [2013 SCC 14 374], [2012 SCC CRI 4 426], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 1073], [2013 CRILJ 3644], [2013 AD SC 2 565], [2013 AJR 4 643], [2013 DMC SC 1 1], [2012 JT SC 12 390], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 1 959], [2012 SCALE 12 692], [2013 UC 1 155], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 577], [2013 CRI LJ 3644]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151787634/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af17e4b014971141594d

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/chandralekha-and-ors-vs-state-of-rajasthan-anr

State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017

Posted on September 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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!!!

And the sweet response from the judge for the assertion that “498A IPC is a continuing offence” was, It is not so.

State Vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017

Amarendu Jyoti And Others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 4 Aug, 2014

Posted on May 5, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment declares a criminal case of filed at a wrong jurisdiction and permits transfer of case to another court with proper jurisdiction to proceed with case.

One piece of valuable information is

We find that the offence of cruelty cannot be said to be a continuing one as contemplated by Sections 178 and 179 of the Code. We do not agree with the High Court that in this case the mental cruelty inflicted upon the respondent no. 2 “continued unabated” on account of no effort having been made by the appellants to take her back to her matrimonial home, and the threats given by the appellants over the telephone. It might be noted incidentally that the High Court does not make reference to any particular piece of evidence regarding the threats said to have been given by the appellants over the telephone.

One thing to note is the judge is directing to effectively transfer case on court with proper jurisdiction.

However, we consider it appropriate, in the interest of justice to permit the Court at Ambikapur to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case arising out of F.I.R. No. 798 of 2005 dated 31.12.2005, in exercise of powers conferred on this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Amarendu Jyoti And Others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 4 Aug, 2014

The high court judgment which was appealed over in this SC judgment is here.

Another such previous wonderful judgment is available here.

Manish Ratan And Others Vs State Of M.P And Another on 01 Nov 2006

Posted on May 5, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is one of the judgments wherein a criminal case filed at wrong jurisdiction is directed to be transferred to a court with proper jurisdiction!! Interesting !!

We, therefore, are of the opinion that, interest of justice would be subserved, while setting aside the order of the High Court, if in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we direct transfer of the criminal case pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. We accordingly do so.

Manish Ratan And Others v. State Of M.P And Another on 01 Nov 2006

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Not Continuing Offence

Chandralekha Vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 14 December, 2012

State vs Mumtaz Ali & Anr on 8 August, 2017

Amarendu Jyoti And Others vs. State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 4 Aug, 2014

Manish Ratan And Others Vs State Of M.P And Another on 01 Nov 2006