Amritpal Singh Mahendra Singh Kaler and Ors Vs Daljit Kaur on 22 November, 2017
Tag: CrPC Sec 482 – Quash
Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Others Vs State Another on 12 October, 2007
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has quash the FIR on parents and relatives in a false case of 498A, 406 IPC.
Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Others Vs State Another on 12 October, 2007[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016
Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors Vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr on 15 March, 2013
A similar judgment to this one here from Apex Court.
Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors Vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr on 15 March, 2013[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Jagruti Shashikant Soni Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2018
Weird case disposed off by High Court of Gujarat !!!
Sections included in the FIR by police are: Sections 498-A, 509, 342, 504, 506, 427, 34 etc. of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
From Para 5 and 5.1,
At the outset, it is submitted that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and therefore, any further continuance of the proceedings pursuant to the impugned FIR as well as any further proceedings arising therefrom would create hardship to the applicants. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed an affidavit in these proceedings and has declared that the dispute between the applicants and respondent No.2 is resolved due to intervention of trusted persons of the society.
Learned advocate for the applicants states that matter is settled between the parties.
Despite it having POCSO applied, What does the below infer? It’s a screaming fake case, wherein the provisions of a penal act, were grossly and brazenly, misused by none other that the knife.
Jagruti Shashikant Soni Vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2018
Rabindra Kumar Pramanik Vs the State on 24 June, 2016
High Court of Calcutta held that,
Rabindra Kumar Pramanik Vs the State on 24 June, 2016On scrutiny of the statement of witnesses like Sekhar Kar, Ramesh Saha and Shankar Roy recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I do not find that the opposite party no.2 was subjected to torture by the present petitioners. However, on close scrutiny of all the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on consideration of the allegation made in the written complaint treated as FIR, I do not find any specific role attributed to the present petitioners in inflicting mental torture or physically assault on the opposite party no.2. The allegation made against the present petitioners are vague and general in nature.
Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007
This is the landmark judgment regarding the inherent powers of High Court
Powers of Court under CrPC 482
Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised:
(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and
(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
Reference made to available here R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866.
In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, this court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly
Reference made to Perjury
The court noticed that the tendency of perjury is very much on the increase. Unless the courts come down heavily upon such persons, the whole judicial process would come to ridicule. The court also observed that chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court.
And law is explained in regards to IPC 415 and 420 Cheating case.
On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that in the definition there are two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning.
And the forgery
The following ingredients are essential for commission of the offence under section 467 IPC:
1. the document in question so forged;
2. the accused who forged it.
3. the document is one of the kinds enumerated in the aforementioned section.
when to issue non-bailable warrants for arresting an individual.
Before parting with this appeal, we would like to discuss an issue which is of great public importance, i.e., how and when warrants should be issued by the Court? It has come to our notice that in many cases that bailable and non-bailable warrants are issued casually and mechanically. In the instant case, the court without properly comprehending the nature of controversy involved and without exhausting the available remedies issued non-bailable warrants.
And…
Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007When non-bailable warrants should be issued Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a person to court when summons of bailable warrants would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could be when:
* it is reasonable to believe that the person will not voluntarily appear in court; or
* the police authorities are unable to find the person to serve him with a summon; or
* it is considered that the person could harm someone if not placed into custody immediately.As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive.
In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the court\022s proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.
Citation: 2007 (10) TMI 550 – SUPREME COURT – 2007 (12) SCC 1, 2008 AIR 251, 2007 (10) SCR 847, 2007 (11) JT 499, 2007 (12) SCALE 15
Syed Abdul Majid @ Majid And Others Vs M.A.Jabbar And Another on 2 April, 2015
The District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar cancelled the bail earlier granted to the Accused, on the baseless and unproven allegations that “some unknown persons on their behalf started threatening the defacto complainant with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise in the case“.
Hon’ble AP High Court has rightly held that the above is not a ground that can be relied upon for Bail cancellation under CrPC 439, as the said allegations are at that point in time are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.
…and…
Syed Abdul Majid @ Majid And Others Vs M.A.Jabbar And Another on 2 April, 2015By virtue of the order of lower Court, the personal liberty of the accused was jeopardized even before establishing their hand in the threat allegedly caused to the defacto complainant. Such an order of lower Court cannot be upheld.
Vineet Kumar And Ors Vs State Of UP & Anr on 31 March, 2017
Another case, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The hon’ble Supreme Court held that,
Vineet Kumar And Ors Vs State Of Up & Anr on 31 March, 2017the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect:
“(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
Above Category 7 is clearly attracted in the facts of the present case.
Vishnu Mohan Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017
This quash judgment from hon’ble high court of patna which held that there was no jurisdiction for Magistrate in Dharbhanga to prosecute the husband for 498A, whereas all the alleged offences occured in Hyderabad. Moreover there was a decree of divorce granted 2 years before instituting the 498A case!!
Vishnu Mohan Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Anr on 21 November, 2017