Atul Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 23 Aug 2021

Posted on August 26, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Single judge of Delhi High Court held that issuance of a legal notice and filing of a complaint case by the petitioner would NOT amount to ‘abetment’ punishable under Section 306 IPC.

From Para 11, Issue framed.

11. The issue involved when narrowed down is whether issuance of a legal notice and filing of a complaint case by the petitioner would amount to ‘abetment’ punishable under Section 306 IPC.

From Para 31,

31. The deceased had felt harassed but, in these facts, the act of petitioner could not be held to have abetted the deceased in committing suicide. The filing of a criminal complaint by the petitioner was his legal recourse, as advised to him.

Atul Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 23 Aug 2021

Amarjit Kaur and Ors Vs Jaswinder Kaur and Ors on 15 May 2020

Posted on May 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Taking cue from Geeta Mehrotra judgment here, Punjab High Court has quashed proceedings on relatives living far away in Canada taking a ground that no specific allegation are in the complaint.

Amarjit Kaur and Ors Vs Jaswinder Kaur and Ors on 15 May 2020

Citations: [2]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12422589/

Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam Vs State of Jharkhand on 27 April 2020

Posted on April 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Jharkhand High Court (Single Bench) has quashed and set aside 3 Orders of Magistrate Court issued under Sections 73, 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, they being with out any application of mind, issued in mechanical manner and with out any reasons recorded as necessary by Code/Law.

From Para 3,

3. The main contention of the petitioners is that the Court below, in a most mechanical manner issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. In the similar
manner the process under section 82 of the Code and thereafter attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code have been issued. It is their contention that, even without receipt of the service report of bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest have been issued against the petitioners.
Similarly, without there being any service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 of the Code has been issued. Further, without any service of the process under Section 82 of the Code, attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code has been issued. It is also the case of the petitioners that the processes are being issued in utter violation of the respective provisions laid down in the Code, i.e. Sections 73, 82 & 83 thereof, thus, these orders need to be set aside.

Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam Vs State of Jharkhand on 27 April 2020

Disclaimer:

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 or Government websites.

I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.

Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998

Posted on September 5, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Similar to M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd judgment here, here also Supreme Court held that where that are baseless and vague allegations, High Courts can invoke their inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC to quash appropriate proceedings.

Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1770765/

Citation: JT 1998 (5) 452, (1998) 7 SCC 698

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997

Posted on September 5, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court which held that, where appropriate High Courts should exercise its power available under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash baseless proceedings.

The Supreme Court had held that,

“Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”

MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/574884/

Citation: 1998 (5) SCC 749, AIR 1998 SC 128

Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011

Posted on May 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the knife filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and approached the Hon’ble court with unclean hands and committed fraud upon the Hon’ble.

Key (Tricky) Highlight around applicability of CrPC but not Sec 468 CrPC:

24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 508.

Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011

Citations : [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 90], [2012 CRLJ SC 309], [2012 ALLMR CRI SC 369], [2011 CRIMES SC 4 51], [2011 SUPREME 6 181], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 129], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 1], [2011 SCC 12 588], [2011 SLT 6 434], [2011 AIOL 597], [2011 SCALE 9 295], [2011 JT 11 177], [2012 SCC CRI 2 614], [2011 ACR SC 3 3544], [2011 DMC SC 3 7], [2011 KCCR 4 3283], [2011 KLJ 3 40], [2011 KLT SN 4 69], [2011 NCC 2 544], [2011 SCR 10 557], [2011 UC 3 1758], [2012 SCC CIV 2 742]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1337239/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af03e4b014971141557d

Another previous judgment cited in this judgment is available here.

Index DV case laws is here.

Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009

Posted on May 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Nice judgment quashing order of Magistrate who took cognizance of case wherein the allegations in the complaint are vague and general in nature, which was filed after about nine years of the marriage!

From Para 4,

the complaint is against Rajesh in the sense that the accused Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over the ornaments and clothes to his parents lest they are lost in the way. On reaching to Delhi when the ornament were asked back by the complainant, they were not returned back.

There is undoubtedly some reference to the present appellants, but what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as to date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description and as to the date when the ornaments were asked back and were refused.

…

Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint and it is a general and vague complaint that the ornaments were sometime given in the custody of the appellants and they were not returned. What strikes us more is that even in paragraph 10 of the complaint where the complainant says that she asked for her clothes and ornaments which were given to the accused and they refused to give these back, the date is significantly absent..

From Para 5,

In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence.

Neelu Chopra & Anr vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/339579/

Citations: [(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286], [2009] INSC 1632, [AIR 2009 SC(Supp) 2950]

Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

Posted on May 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment explaining the imprisonment of accused who fails to make the maintenance payments to Knife under Sec 125(3) of CrPC.

Noticing the peculiar situation where virtually the petitioner has been made to serve life sentence and the insensitivity of the Judge in the matter, we called for the lower Court records to examine for ourselves the facts because if what is being said by the Principal Judge, Family Court is to be accepted then the petitioner would virtually be serving a life sentence with no remission possible.

What is more scandalous is, as will be shown, petitioner has been kept in prison mechanically and that too for months even without any order of remand by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court.

The Code itself provides by Section 421 for warrant for levy of fine….

… A reference to Section 421 and the proviso would show that it clearly prohibits a person to be imprisoned in execution of warrant levying fine which would simply for recovery of the maintenance and, thus, there is no scope for issuance of any distress warrant for detaining a defaulter husband.

For the purposes of sentencing, the Code has provision in terms of Sections 29 and 30 thereof but the question remains that can there be a sentence straightway upon default being shown. In our view, no.

Unfortunately, in total disregard to the binding precedent, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court proceeded. The result is that the petitioner is being detained in custody ad infinitum which is against the statutory provisions.

Again, this is significant inasmuch as the maintenance being a monthly payment, for each month’s default, defaulter can be sentenced for a month’s imprisonment.

As seen above, the maintenance is to be fixed on monthly basis. The sentence has, accordingly, been limited to a month maximum for each breach.

We, therefore, hold that the detention of the petitioner cannot be justified and is contrary to the scheme as provided under Section 125 (3) of the Code. We have no option accordingly but to direct the immediate release of the petitioner, while quashing the order committing the petitioner to custody and subsequent orders of remand. The writ application is allowed.

Laljee Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Order Quashed

Atul Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 23 Aug 2021

Amarjit Kaur and Ors Vs Jaswinder Kaur and Ors on 15 May 2020

Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam Vs State of Jharkhand on 27 April 2020

Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998

MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997

Neelu Chopra and Anr Vs Bharti on 7 October, 2009

Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011