web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Perjury Under 340 CrPC

Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr on 25 Apr 1973

Posted on February 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A 2-judge bench of Apex Court held that, in this particular case, the Police officer can not be saddled with IPC 211 and prosecuted u/s 340 CrPC read with 195 CrPC. But the necessary ingredients are clearly articulated and hence this case law has to be relied upon as landmark judgment to file perjury against the person who made the false complaint (FIR need not be registered).

From Para 8,

8. In this Court, Shri Gupta has very forcefully contended that on the material on the record this direction is wholly unjustified, if not positively illegal, being based on misreading of evidence and on erroneous view of law. According to the submission, the appellant had neither lodged the FIR nor otherwise instituted any criminal proceeding or falsely charged Izhar Hussain within the contemplation of Section 211 IPC. Besides, there is absolutely no material on the record on which the High Court could have formed an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint under Section 211 IPC should be filed against the appellant.

From Para 10,

… The short question posed, therefore, is, if by giving false evidence as a witness against Izhar Hussain the appellant can be said to have charged him within the contemplation of Section 211 IPC. If this question is answered in the affirmative, then it will have to be determined whether there is in fact a false accusation and finally whether it is expedient in the interest of justice on the facts and circumstances of the present case to direct a complaint to be filed under Section 211 IPC. This section as its marginal note indicates renders punishable false charge of offence with intent to injure. The essential ingredient of an offence under Section 211 IPC is to institute or cause to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. It is frankly conceded by Shri Kohli that the appellant cannot be said to have instituted any criminal proceeding against any person. So that part of Section 211 IPC is eliminated. Now, the expression “falsely charges” in this section, in our opinion, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial. To “falsely charge” must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation and not when speaking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be read along with the expression “institution of criminal proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been used in their cognate sense. They get as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a technical sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made. The statement in order to constitute the “charge” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. Statement on oath falsely supporting the prosecution case against an accused person more appropriately amounts to an offence under Sections 193 and 195 IPC and not under Section 211 IPC. We do not think that the offences contemplated by Sections 193/195 IPC on the one hand and Section 211 IPC on the other were intended by the legislature in this context, to overlap so as to make it optional whether to proceed under one or the other. ..…

From Para 11,

Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the court should direct prosecution.

Original:

Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr on 25 Apr 1973 (SCI)

Casemine Version.

Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr on 25 Apr 1973

Citations : [1973 AIR SC 2190], [1974 BLJR 22 877], [1973 SCC 2 406], [1974 SCR 1 78], [1973 CAR 316], [1973 CRLR SC 473], [1973 SCC CR 828], [1973 SCC CRI 828], [1973 CRLJ SC 1176]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56524/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab94e4b014971140cd11


Index of Perjury judgments here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 IPC 211 - False charge of offence made with intent to injure Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Perjury Under 340 CrPC Reportable Judgement or Order Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr | Leave a comment

A.Radhika Vs Wilson Sundararaj on 26 Feb 2021

Posted on February 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Citing landmark judgments, Madras High Court held that Investigating Officer cannot made liable u/s 211 IPC and based on another decision by Madras High Court here said such officers may be proceeded u/s 218 IPC which does not come under the procedure of 340 CrPC r/w 195 CrPC.

From Para 21,

21. The above judgements set out the procedure while dealing with an application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. Firstly, in order to initiate proceedings under Section 340,Cr.P.C., an application has to be made to the Court upon which the Court can initiate an inquiry into any offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. Secondly, offences as set out in the complaint have to be made out. In the present case, the complainant alleges that an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. has been made out.

From Para 22,

22. In the present case, based on the complaint given by one Mr. Rajamani, the FIR was registered by the F-2 Police Station, Egmore and the arrest was also carried out by the said police. The Petitioner came into the scene only at a later point of time when the case was transferred to the file of the CBCID. The language used under Section 211, I.P.C. regarding false charge can only relate to the original or initial accusation through which the criminal law was set in motion. Admittedly, it was not the Petitioner who had set the criminal law in motion. That apart, as held in Iqbal Singh Marwah’s Case (cited supra) the offences referred to under Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. will get attracted only with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.

And finally from paras 24 and 25,

24. This Court after considering the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perumal v. Janaki (cited supra) has come up with this fine distinction in the case of S.Mukanchand Bothra (cited supra). That apart, the facts of the present case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perumal v. Janaki.
25. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the offence under Section 211, I.P.C. has not been made out against the Petitioner. The Respondent cannot pick and choose certain observations made by the trial court and this Court, and make it a basis for filing an application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. to punish the Petitioner under Section 211, I.P.C.

Silver lining from para 26,

26. A careful reading of the petition filed by the Respondent at the best makes out a case for malicious prosecution. In a case of malicious prosecution, which gives rise to a tortious liability, only a suit for damages can be filed by establishing the ingredients to maintain such a suit. The grounds for maintaining a suit for malicious prosecution cannot form the basis for filing a petition under Section 340, Cr.P.C. since it has to independently satisfy the requirements of Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C.

A.Radhika Vs Wilson Sundararaj on 26 Feb 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

 

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged A.Radhika Vs Wilson Sundararaj CrPC 340 - Quashed IPC 211 - False charge of offence made with intent to injure Perjury Under 340 CrPC S.Mukanchand Bothra Vs Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Educational Charitable Trust Chennai and Ors | Leave a comment

CrPC 164 – Recording of confessions and statements

Posted on January 11, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:
Provided that any confession or statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence:
Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:—
“I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.
(Signed) A. B.
Magistrate.”
(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.
(5A) (a) In cases punishable under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the person against whom such offence has been committed in the manner prescribed in sub-section (5), as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police:
Provided that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the Magistrate shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement:
Provided further that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the statement made by the person, with the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator, shall be videographed.
(b) A statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, shall be considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief, as specified in section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) such that the maker of the statement can be cross-examined on such statement, without the need for recording the same at the time of trial.
(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 164 - Recording of Confessions and Statements CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Perjury Under 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 2020

Posted on December 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A JMFC has ordered for complaint of perjury in this Judgment. Nice one…

From Para 10, 11 and 12,

10. I have accepted B summary report filed by I.O., in Crime No., 08/2020 registered at Wai police station. On that basis, in present inquiry, I come to the conclusion that informant of said crime has given false FIR at Wai police station as well false statement on oath under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Court of Justice. Therefore, it appears to me that the informant being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, but she has given false FIR as well as false statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. The informant has given statement on oath under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai, inspite of knowledge that the FIR lodged by her is false. Informant has lodged false FIR with intent to cause injury to the present applicant and to Bhisham Parwani, knowing that no just or lawful ground for further proceeding on the basis of that false FIR.
11. Therefore, I record my finding that Criminal Prosecution is required to be initiated against the respondent No. 2 of this application who is informant of Crime No. 08/2020 registered at Wai police station for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has prima facie committed aforesaid offences in relation to B summary proceeding before this Court. It is necessary to make mention here that there is no cogent and convincing material to proceed against respondents No. 3 to 6 for the offences mentioned above.
12. Considering all above grounds, a complaint is required to be filed against the present respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is required to authorise officer of this Court to file a written complaint on behalf of this Court against respondent No. 2 in this Court.

Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 2020

Earlier proceedings here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 164 - Recording of Confessions and Statements Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors Perjury - Forged Evidence or False Statements on Oath or False Affidavit Submitted Perjury Under 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

State Of Goa Vs Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales on 18 Aug 2017

Posted on November 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

2-Judge bench held that without prima facie opinion in a complaint made otherwise than a police complaint, invoking of perjury u/s 340 CrPC or 341 CrPC is indefensible.

From Para 58,

58. We are thus of the firm opinion that a Trial Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint under Section 340 and/or Section 341 of the Code, if there is a preliminary inquiry and adequate materials in support of the considerations impelling action under the above provisions are available, would be required to treat such complaint to constitute a case, as if instituted on police report and proceed in accordance with law. However, in absence of any preliminary inquiry or adequate materials, it would be open for the Trial Magistrate, if he genuinely feels it necessary, in the interest of justice and to avoid unmerited prosecution to embark on a summary inquiry to collect further materials and then decide the future course of action as per law. In both the eventualities, the Trial Magistrate has to be cautious, circumspect, rational, objective and further informed with the overwhelming caveat that the offence alleged is one affecting the administration of justice, requiring a responsible, uncompromising and committed approach to the issue referred to him for inquiry and trial, as the case may be. In no case, however, in the teeth of Section 343(1), the procedure prescribed for cases  instituted otherwise than on police report would either be relevant or applicable qua the complaints under Section 340 and/or 341 of the Cr.P.C.

And from Final Para,

60. In view of the determination as above, the approach of the High Court is wholly indefensible, as in the face of Section 343(1) of the Cr.P.C., the procedure prescribed for cases instituted otherwise than on police report is not attracted qua a complaint under Section 340 and/or Section 341 of the Code. Even assuming that the Trial Magistrate had examined few witnesses in support of the complaint, it was in the form of a summary inquiry, to be satisfied as to whether the materials on record would justify the framing of charge against the respondent or not and nothing further. Any other view would fly in the face of the ordainment of Section 343(1) of the Cr.P.C. and thus cannot receive judicial imprimatur. The impugned judgment of the High Court in quashing the charge framed by the Trial Magistrate and remanding the case to him to follow the procedure outlined for cases, instituted otherwise than on police report, under Chapter XIX-B is on the face of it unsustainable in law and on facts. It is thus set aside. The appeals are allowed. The Trial Magistrate would proceed from the stage of framing of charge, strictly in compliance of the letter and spirit of the precept contained in Section 343(1) of the Code. We make it clear that we have not offered any observation on the merits of the charge and the Trial Court would further the proceedings in accordance with law.

State Of Goa Vs Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales on 18 Aug 2017

Citations : [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1021], [2017 ALLCC 101 330], [2017 CCR SC 4 28], [2017 JCC 4 2245], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 3 981], [2017 SCALE 9 527], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1021]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194410529/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a65cbaf4a93263320778706


Index of Perjury Case laws is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 340 - Dismissed/Rejected Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Perjury - Prima Facie Opinion of Perjury Perjury Under 340 CrPC State Of Goa Vs Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales | Leave a comment

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

Posted on October 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Since there was 1 judgment from a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court which said Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory u/s 340 CrPC, the 2-judge bench in this case, referred this point to a Larger bench.

From Para 14,

14. In any event, given that the decision of the three-Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar (supra) did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from the opinion expressed by a Coordinate Bench in Pritish (supra) regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as also the observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), we find it necessary that the present matter be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration, particularly to answer the following questions:
(i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court?
(ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?
15. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

This was answered by a three-judge bench as follows:

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 15 Sep 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

 


Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Perjury - Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Perjury Under 340 CrPC Referred to Large Bench State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh | Leave a comment

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

Posted on October 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Citing Iqbal Marwah here and other landmark case laws, Supreme Court says,

From Para 10,

10. It is fairly well settled that before lodging of the complaint, it is necessary that the court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint. It is not necessary that the court must use the actual words of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; but the court should record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. Observing that under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not on mere allegations or to vindicate personal vendetta,

From Para 11,

11. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient in the interest of justice”. The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. It has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the present case whether any prima facie case is made out for forgery or making a forged document warranting issuance of directions for lodging the complaint under Section 193, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

From Para 19,

19. Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama is wrong, mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to create a forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the appellants.

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC 6 477], [2019 SCC CRI 2 826], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 664], [AIR 2019 SC 2280], [2019 (2) Crimes 279], [2019 (7) Scale 559], [2019 CriLJ 2896], [2019 CrLJ 2896], [2019 (3) JLJR 122], [2019 (3) PLJR 122]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150953328/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cd3c6064a932660042c22f2

https://caselaw.in/supreme-court/sasikala-pushpa-v-state-of-tamil-nadu/4295/


Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah and Anr Perjury Under 340 CrPC Reportable Judgement or Order Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu | Leave a comment

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes and Ors Vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) thru LRs on 21 Mar 2012

Posted on October 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Shri Dalveer Bhandari J has held so with regards to civil cases such as DVC, HMA24 etc…

42. In civil cases, adherence to Section 30 CPC would alsohelp in ascertaining the truth. It seems that this provision which ought to be frequently used is rarely pressed in serviceby our judicial officers and judges. Section 30 CPC reads as under:-
30. Power to order discovery and the like. –
Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, at any time either of its own motion or on the application of any party, –
(a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence;
(b) issue summons to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as aforesaid;
(c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit

Regarding punishing perjurers:

82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devi aptly observed at p. 266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court’s otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pp. 267-68, para 58 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.

Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes and Ors Vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) thru LRs on 21 Mar 2012

Citations: [2012 SCC CIV 3 126], [2012 AIR SC 1727], [2012 AIR SC 2162], [2012 RCR CIVIL SC 2 441], [2012 SCALE 3 550], [2012 AIR BOMR 3 857], [2012 AIOL 139], [2012 SLT 2 753], [2012 JT 3 451], [2012 BOMCR SC 4 75], [2012 CCC SC 2 344], [2012 SUPREME 2 602], [2012 SCC 5 370], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 281], [2012 ALR 92 251], [2012 LW 3 111], [2012 AIC 113 212], [2012 ALD 4 1], [2012 ALT SC 3 518], [2012 AWC SC 4 3645], [2012 CUT LT 114 437], [2012 SCSUPPL CHN 3 1]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100486606/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af13e4b014971141585f

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Costs for Perjury CPC Order 11 - Discovery and Inspection CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings Interrogatories Justice Dalveer Bhandari Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes and Ors Vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) thru LRs Perjury - Initiate Prosecution Perjury Under 340 CrPC Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Posted on September 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that for offences under 191 and 192 IPC, procedure under 340 CrPC has to be followed and perjury application for such offences cannot be turned into private complaints under 190 CrPC.

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 707], [(2020)20 SCC 1]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141105348/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f567c183321bc6ce2ef6f51

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13132

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/m-s-bandekar-brothers-pvt-ltd-anr-versus-prasad-vassudev-keni-etc-etc


Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni Perjury Under 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

All Reliefs from Judiciary

Posted on August 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Awareness of law involved in the case laid against you is crucial to handle and take charge of your case yourself. The following are some of the general reliefs one can invoke in Andhra Pradesh for sure. They may apply to other states also. List of High Courts is here.


BNSS is available here.


Note: If you need some reliefs from Police High-handedness, go here.


Always remember Article 21 of Constitution of India

Article 21 is what powers Fair treatment of accused during criminal trials. It provides for fair investigation, Fair trial and Fair Judgment. Any violation of Article 21 gives you liberty to invoke Article 226 at High Court and Article 32 at Supreme Court to seek Writ Reliefs. Case laws are available in chronological order here.

It reads as follows:

21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.


Engagement of Advocates

As per Section 32 of Advocates Act 1961, you can appear in your own case.

If a victim wants to engage a private advocate to prosecute their case, yes you can, but only to assist the PP. The sections to back this aspect are to read

  1. Sec 225 CrPC
  2. Proviso to Sec 24(8) CrPC
  3. Sec 301 CrPC
  4. and finally Sec 302 CrPC. In that Order.

Hope this helps clarify the legal position to those of us who filed/intend to file Criminal cases against OP. This is explained in this case law here. The case law is available on my site here.


Engagement of a third-party other than Advocates

As per again Section 32 of Advocates Act 1961, you can appear in some one else’s case, subject to certain conditions.

  1. You must be a non-advocate
  2. You must have some relationship due to which the accused/defendant trusts you
  3. You may be permitted by a Court, an authority or any person
  4. You may be permitted to appear in any particular case; as a corollary, may not be permitted in all cases or for all clients
  5. Prior Court permission is necessary (via a Petition; sample here)

This is laid out by the Legendary Jurist Sri V.R. Krishna Iyer in this celebrated case law here.


Terminating the services of Advocates (through issuing a termination letter discharging existing Advocate from case who earlier filed vakalatnama and communicating the same to advocate)

You have complete freedom to terminate the services of your Advocate and engage another one. Just be cautiously about the local procedures which can differ from High Court to High Court. It means, in some High Courts, there is no need of any No-Objection-Certification (NOC) from your current Advocate before you engage another. Like in Karnataka. But not so in Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is unwritten rule to obtain NOC so as to avoid unpleasant situations/conversations/interactions between you and your advocates (or between the earlier and current Advocates). Nevertheless Supreme Court has laid down a landmark case law here. Use it judiciously. Also take a look at other similar case laws here.


First Appearance in Court

Once the case documents are sent to Court via a Charge sheet or Closure report as mandated u/s 173 CrPC, Court Filing Section staff gives is a case number and list it in the causelist (daily timetable of work) before a competent Magistrate/ Judge.

On your first appearance day in the Court, Court staff will ask questions to identify you and your purpose of attending the Court. Next question is if you have engaged an advocate or need time for this purpose. Finally, case will be adjourned to a future date and each accused person will be given a set of copy of the above case documents which were submitted into Court by Police as mandated u/s 207 CrPC.

And once an Anticipatory Bail is granted, it protected the grantee/accused until the end of trial and there is no need to obtain Regular Bail, after Charge sheet is filed by Police into the Court. Case law here.


Exemption from Personal Appearance in Court

If you do not want to appear even on first appearance for certain obvious and unavoidable reasons, take help from this case law here and here and You can seek exemption for self or other accused from appearing in the Court in a case u/s 205 CrPC of CrPC 205. Vital Case laws are available here. For single-day relief, see Absent Petition below.


Provision u/s 173 CrPC to demand documents from IO to be submitted to Court and to obtain a copy of prosecution documents

Section 173(7) reads as follows:

(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).

How to use it:

If you are good terms with IO, then he/she may find it convenient to furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents. Be courteous to IO to make use of this.

Note: Otherwise, as mentioned above, Court will anyways, provide a copy of the entire bunch of prosecution documents to each accused on first appearance.

Section 173(6) reads as follows:

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

How to use it:

If you have submitted any documents/made a statement that IO records during inquiry (supposedly u/s 41A CrPC), and such documents are missing in the bunch of documents procured via above section or u/s 207 CrPC, then submit to the Court that such left-out/excluded documents be brought on record of Court. The case law is here.

Even if such seeking of documents is objected to for any legal reason, one can seek for inspection of such documents as held in here.


Protest Petition

After Police file a final report ( be it a Charge sheet or a Closure report), Court notifies the informant/complainant about the same and invites any objections to the same. The informant/complainant can file a protest petition into the Court and object to section/accused removal from Charge sheet or Closure report itself can be objected to. Couple of Landmark judgments are here.


Limited Authority of Registry or Filing Section/Office attached to a Court

A Registry attached to a High Court or a Filing Section attached to a District/Magistrate Court has a limited set of functions on the administration of Justice and authority and they certainly can not exercise judicial function as held by Supreme Court here. Use this judgment, as appropriate, to ensure Court staff perform only their duties and nothing beyond that.


Time-bound disposal provisions in Various Enactments

Check this page here for various provision available in the gender-biased laws which specify time limits for disposal of cases.


Use of Interrogatories in Civil and Criminal cases

Carefully designed Interrogatories are a tool to extract helpful information from OP. Read more info here.

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Order XI – Discovery and Inspection (read with Sec 30) has the necessary Rules to be following to file an application for delivery of interrogatories in a Civil case like DVC, HMA24 etc.

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 287 provides a similar provision in Criminal cases in which a commission is issued.

Case laws here.


Usage of Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.)

If you are going to fight your case on your own as Party-in-person, make good use of Rule 37 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990 (High Court of A.P.), which allows you to represent your co-accused, most probably, your parents or family members.

Same Rules apply to folks in Telangana State too. Some case laws here.


Absent Petition

You can seek exemption for self or other accused from appearing in the Court on a particular singular date in a case u/s 317 CrPC.

You can send your duly-filled, stamped and signed absent petitions to the Office of Superintendent of the Court where your case is going on, well in advance, with a cover letter to place your Absent petition on the Bench.


Non-bailable Warrants (NBWs) for arrest

It is highly possible that trial courts may issue NBWs at the drop of the hat. Despite having bail for the said accused already. So to overcome this issue, once has to file a Recall petition seeking recall of the NBW. Use these judgments here, to tide over this menace.

The general procedure is issue summons first, then bailable warrants and finally non-bailable warrants for arrest of accused. As per BNSS, such serving of these instruments is permissible through electronic means too as per this decision.

In case NBWs are issued and petition for recall of the same (u/s 70(2) CrPC) are refused/dismissed, you can file Revision at the Appellate Court (u/s 397 CrPC). Use these judgments here


Speedy Trial

Our right to Fair and Speedy Trial arises from Article 21 (read with Article 227) . The case laws are here. A landmark judgment is here which also refers to section 483 CrPC. Article 227 also is a remedy.


Arrest unnecessary adjournments

Tareeq pe tareeq epidemic can easily be addressed taking help u/s 309(2) CrPC which is amended by Act 5 of 2009, s. 21 (w.e.f. 1-11-2010). Read the Landmark judgment which insisted on the importance, utility and urgent need of Trial/Session Courts to use the 4th Proviso to this sub-section here (2013). A 2017 reportable decision here. Also Read the other judgments here (included AP HC case law).

Also if prosecution fails to bring the witnesses to Court for examination, Courts can deny granting adjournments as held here.

Also if prosecution or defence try to delay Cross-examination of a witness, Courts can at max defer to 3 days as held here and can also levy heavy fines as held in this tagline here.

It is held by the Apex Court here that, Chief Examination & Cross-Examination Of Witness Must Be Recorded On The Same Day Or Following Day. Another similar case law here.


Recording of Prosecution Evidence

This is a part of the broader Examination Stage, wherein Prosecution brings forward all their Witnesses and Evidences necessary to convict the accused persons. This is mandated u/s 273 CrPC. While the rule says, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, there is one exception to it, that is, when the attendance of accused is dispensed with (under any of sections 205 or 317), then the prosecution evidence can be recorded by the Court, in the absence of the accused, but in the presence of the pleader of the accused. And such evidence of prosecution may be recorded, when the accused joins the proceedings, virtually through video conferencing. Supporting case law here.


Time-barred Litigation

Time-barred litigation should be attacked using the provision u/s 468 of CrPC.


Register a complaint against Public Servant (No sanction from Government required!!!)

If any Public servant (read as Judge, Magistrate or Police) does something to violate their duty as prescribed u/s 197 CrPC, they are liable for criminal prosecution u/s 166A IPC. Read full details here. Karnataka High Court clearly explains this here.


Discharge Petition

If the prosecution documents do not have any basis to connect you to the allegation listed in Charge sheet by Police, this is one opportunity to find the grounds and file a Discharge Petition and come out the case. Check out the landmark case laws here. Especially, B S Neelakanta judgment.


Case Calendar

The common frustration defence has with Prosecution in a false case is, absconding of the prosecution witnesses from Cross-examination. For obvious reasons, false case filers generally, do not appear for Cross examination. To tackle such scenarios, you can use the Supreme Court judgment to force the Trial judge to come up with case calendar for the entire case, which is available here.


Only 6 months Stay on Proceedings

It is common knowledge that one party goes to higher courts seeking to stay proceedings in lower court. Supreme Court has restricting this behavior of endless stay on proceedings which is impacting the disposal of cases in timely manner in this judgment here.


During Cross examination of Lying witnesses

Make good use of this set of legal weapons from Indian Evidence Act 1872.

 

59. Proof of facts by oral evidence. –– All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence.

60. Oral evidence must be direct. –– Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say ––
if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable.
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.

61. Proof of contents of documents. –– The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.

101. Burden of proof. –– Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. –– When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

 

132. Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate. –– A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind:
Proviso. –– Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer.

138. Order of examinations. –– Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. A landmark judgment is available here.

146. Questions lawful in cross-examination. –– When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend––
(1) to test his veracity,
(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or
(3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him, or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture:
Provided that in a prosecution for an offence under section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is an issue, it shall not be permissible to adduce evidence or to put questions in the cross-examination of the victim as to the general immoral character, or previous sexual experience, of such victim with any person for proving such consent or the quality of consent.

155. Impeaching credit of witness. –– The credit of a witness may be impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of the Court, by the party who calls him: ––
(1) By the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;
(2) By proof that the witness has been bribed, or has accepted the offer of a bribe, or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(3) By proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;
Explanation. –– A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.

159. Refreshing memory. –– A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory.
The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct.
When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory. –– Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document:
Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original. An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.

160. Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in section 159. ––A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 159, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document.


Objections raised by Prosecution or Court during the Examination/Evidence Stage:

It is possible that either the Prosecution or the Court may raise objections to the questions put to the Prosecution witnesses during Cross Examination stage. Use this judgment here to get the questions and deposition recorded properly.


Prosecution witnesses absent for the Examination/Evidence Stage:

Cr.P.C. (u/s 284 and 285 onwards) provides for issuing commissions which will go to the place where the prosecution witness resides and record the deposition. Use this sample here to tighten the screws of the lying (and absenting) complainant.


Arguments

Then comes the crucial stage of Arguments. You can submit oral arguments before the Court and also file written arguments which must be made part of the case record/bundle. This is covered under section 314 of Cr.P.C. and the Trial Courts must not refuse them to be brought on record of case. Check these cases here.


Perjury is nearby

Let the OP lie in Court. Just ensure you have the truth (hint: evidences) with you. Perjury will be awaiting just in case an illegal order gets to be passed. Here are the Case laws.


Contempt Jurisdiction to the rescue

If no order gets passed due to Perjury, let the Contempt jurisdiction take care of falsifications, material concealments, forgeries etc. Again do let the OP lie and cheat, which comes to them naturally. You can get punishment and fine levied upon the OP under the following provisions. Few case here.

  1. Article 129 of the Constitution of India (At Supreme Court)
  2. Article 142 of the Constitution of India (At Supreme Court)
  3. Article 215 of the Constitution of India (At High Courts)
  4. Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (here is the Act)

Compensation

 


Delay in Pronouncing Judgments

Sometimes, Courts take enormous amount of time in pronouncing the Judgments after reserving the same. Supreme Court gave directions that can be used by us. One such landmark judgment is here. This tag here has some more judgments.


Obtaining copy of the Judgment/Order for free

Order passed under

  • Section 204(3) CrPC: Summon (in a summons-case) or Warrant (in a warrants-case) issued u/s 204(1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. (Also obtain the list of prosecution witnesses !!)
  • Section 248(1) CrPC: Acquittal Order after Trail
  • Section 249 CrPC: Discharge from a non-cognizable or a compoundable case, if the complainant is absent
  • Section 252 CrPC: Conviction Order in case of guilty plea.
  • Section 256 CrPC: Acquittal Order in case of non-appearance or death of complainant
  • Section 257 CrPC: Acquittal Order in case of withdrawal of complaint
  • Section 258 CrPC: Acquittal or Discharge of an accused due to stoppage of proceedings by Magistrate
  • Section 24 of PWDV Act 2005: Court to give copies of order free of cost.

Certified copies of Docket Order

If you want to obtain certified copies of the docket order in any case, no Court can deny because the docket order is very much part of Court record. If the Copy or/and Filing sections rerutn your copy application (CA) by giving an objection like, a permission petition has to be filed, take help from this case laws here.


Reasoned Orders/Judgments

The hallmark of a judicial pronouncement is the quality of reasons given against each issue/charge framed at the beginning of the decision. This decision here is just one which emphasizes the same.


Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India

Check out this page here.

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in LLB Study Material | Tagged All Reliefs from Judiciary Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court BNSS Sec 530 - Trial and proceedings to be held in electronic mode BNSS Sec 70 - Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present Costs For Contempt Of Court CPC Order 11 - Discovery and Inspection Criminal Rules of Practice Rule 37 - One Accused May Be Permitted To Represent Other CrPC 164 - Recording of Confessions and Statements CrPC 173 - Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation CrPC 173(5) - Prosecution Can Produce Additional Documents CrPC 197 - Prosecution of Judges and public servants CrPC 205 – Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused CrPC 207 - Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents CrPC 239 - When accused shall be discharged CrPC 273 - Evidence to be taken in presence of accused CrPC 284 - When attendance of witness may be dispensed with and commission issued CrPC 285 - Commission to whom to be issued CrPC 287 - Parties may examine witnesses CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings CrPC 314 - Oral arguments and memorandum of arguments CrPC 317 - Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases CrPC 397/399 - Revision CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation CrPC 483 - Duty of High Court to exercise continuous superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates CrPC 73 - Warrant may be directed to any person Fine For Contempt Of Court Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court Interrogatories IPC 166A - Public servant disobeying direction under law Perjury Under 340 CrPC Remedies against Malicious Prosecution in India Work-In-Progress Article | 4 Comments

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rose_k01 Rosy @rose_k01 ·
10 Jul

Women in the Yao village of China are famous for having the Longest hair in the World averaging 6 feet long. Women in their 80s still don't have a Single grey hair!! Their secret is Fermented Rice water. Watch How they make & use it 🍚🌾💧

Reply on Twitter 2075635918879523325 Retweet on Twitter 2075635918879523325 897 Like on Twitter 2075635918879523325 3906 X 2075635918879523325
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ani ANI @ani ·
12 Jul

Promo | ANI Podcast with R.V.S. Mani, Former Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Premieres Today at 5 PM IST

"Narendra Modi and Amit Shah Were the Targets in the Ishrat Jahan Case."

"None of the Files Had the Term 'Hindu Terror' Until 2010."

"Digvijaya Singh Asked Me to

Reply on Twitter 2076177037165994029 Retweet on Twitter 2076177037165994029 625 Like on Twitter 2076177037165994029 1604 X 2076177037165994029
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
kolla_ch1 చైతన్య కొల్లా @kolla_ch1 ·
11 Jul

రాష్ట్రం మీద పడి.. అడ్డ గాడిదల్లా... అడ్డ దిడ్డంగా పడి దోచుకున్న అడ్డమైన ఎదవలకు ఊడిగం చేస్తూ

డెలివరీ బాయ్ లను అవమానపర్చే

ఆ నెల తక్కువ సన్నాసి మొహాన కొట్టండయ్యా దీన్ని 🤷‍♂️

Reply on Twitter 2076018293836808437 Retweet on Twitter 2076018293836808437 111 Like on Twitter 2076018293836808437 644 X 2076018293836808437
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shunyta_007 𝐒ɦυ𐓣𝗒𝗍α @shunyta_007 ·
12 Jul

Observation Skills 🔥

Reply on Twitter 2076189650885226496 Retweet on Twitter 2076189650885226496 537 Like on Twitter 2076189650885226496 3147 X 2076189650885226496
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs N.C.T. Delhi and Anr on 23 Mar 2001 July 12, 2026
  • Application for Day-to-Day Trial – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft July 8, 2026
  • Pooja Ramesh Singh Vs JnK Bank and Anr on 02 Jul 2026 July 8, 2026
  • A.S.S.K.Durga Prasad Vs NCDRC and Ors on 24 Jun 2026 July 7, 2026
  • Application for Permanent Exemption from Appearance – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft July 7, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (5,051 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,607 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,533 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,008 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,378 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (2,155 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,059 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,928 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,872 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (1,804 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (436)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (422)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (386)Landmark Case (383)1-Judge Bench Decision (366)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (297)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (91)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (758)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (187)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (83)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (62)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (51)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Archives of SoK

  • July 2026 (13)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • AMS (Amsterdam) on 2026-07-24 July 24, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 24, 00:30 - 06:00 UTC Jul 14, 10:30 UTC Update - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in AMS (Amsterdam) datacenter on 2026-07-24 between 00:30 and 06:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
    Cloudflare

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 85.158.110.120 | S July 14, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 5 | First: 2026-07-14 | Last: 2026-07-14
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1078 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel