Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharastra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008

Posted on July 19 by ShadesOfKnife

A wonderful decision by Supreme Court of India around High Court’s inherent power under section 482 CrPC against the Revisional Powers u/s 401 CrPC.

From Para 8,

8. Indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. This Court in a large number of decisions beginning from R .P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 to Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka , [ (2008) 3 SCC 574 ] has laid down the criterion for entertaining an application under Section 482. Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application under Section 482 of the Code.
Even where a revision application is barred, as for example the remedy by way of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court has held that the remedies under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would be available. (See Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, [ (2003) 6 SCC 675 ] ).
Even in cases where a second revision before the High Court after dismissal of the first one by the Court of Sessions is barred under Section 397 (2) of the Code, the inherent power of the Court has been held to be available.

Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharastra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008

Citations : [2009 SCC 2 370], [2009 CRLJ SC 974], [2008 SCALE 16 240], [2009 SCC CRI 1 806], [2009 BOMCR CRI SC 1 802], [2008 AIOL 1468], [2008 SCR 17 844], [2009 AIR SC 1032], [2009 AIC SC 75 265], [2009 ECRN SC 2 284]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1891955/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae9ee4b0149711414586

Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors on 08 Oct 1974

Posted on July 10 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench consisting the legendary Justice P.N. Bhagvati, held that a subsequent petition under 482 CrPC is maintainable if the facts and circumstances are different from earlier application. Here Section 561-A is current Section 482 CrPC.

Section 561-A preserves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and the High Court must, therefore, exercise its inherent powers having regard to the situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be invoked. The High Court was in the circumstances entitled to entertain the subsequent application of Respondents 1 and 2 and consider whether on the facts and circumstances then obtaining the continuance of the proceeding against the respondents constituted an abuse of the process of the Court or its quashing was necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Indiankanoon version:

Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors

Casemine version:

Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors (Casemine)

Citations : [1975 AIR SC 1002], [1975 PLR 77 147], [1975 SCC 3 706], [1974 CRLR 0 691], [1975 AIR SC 100], [1975 SCJ 11 478], [1976 MLJ CRL 1 1], [1975 SCC CRI 156], [1975 CRLJ SC 812]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1993916/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aba3e4b014971140cf5f

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Harini H Vs Kavya H and Ors on 17 Jun 2021

Posted on July 1 by ShadesOfKnife

A brain dead person seems to have tried to implicate unrelated person into a false DV case but the single bench of Karnataka High Court quashed such designed…

From Para 2,

2. The argument of the petitioner’s counsel is that the petitioner has been unnecessarily made a party by the 1st respondent in her application before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short). He submits that the only allegation found is that the 1st respondent suspected her husband to be having illegal relationship with the petitioner and he thought of bringing her to his house. Therefore he argued that the petitioner herein should not have been made a party in the application filed under Section 12 of the Act as she does not fall within the meaning of respondent as mentioned under Section 2(q) of the Act. So far as the petitioner is concerned it cannot be said that she has committed domestic violence to prosecute her to claim any relief from her. In fact if the reliefs claimed in the application made under Section 12 of the Act are perused, no relief is claimed against the petitioner and therefore the proceedings against her requires to be quashed.

Harini H Vs Kavya H and Ors on 17 Jun 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

Kar HC | Persons only in ‘domestic relationship’ as per S. 2 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be made as respondent under S. 12 of DV Act

Bhushan Kumar and Anr Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 4 April 2012

Posted on December 29, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A 2-judge Division Bench held that Quash petition is maintainable even though this instant matter is dismissed on merits.

From Para 5,

5) The questions which arise for consideration in these appeals are:
(a) Whether taking cognizance of an offence by the Magistrate is same as summoning an accused to appear?
(b) Whether the Magistrate, while considering the question of summoning an accused, is required to assign reasons for the same?

From Para 7,

7) In S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer vs. Videocon International Ltd. & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 492, the expression “cognizance” was explained by this Court as it merely means“become aware of” and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes “to take notice of judicially”. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone. It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons.

From Para 8 (Very Imp)

8) Under Section 190 of the Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code.

From Para 9,

9) A summon is a process issued by a Court calling upon a person to appear before a Magistrate. It is used for the purpose of notifying an individual of his legal obligation to appear before the Magistrate as a response to violation of law. In other words, the summons will announce to the person to whom it is directed that a legal proceeding has been started against that person and the date and time on which the person must appear in Court. A person who is summoned is legally bound to appear before the Court on the given date and time. Willful disobedience is liable to be punished under Section 174 IPC. It is a ground for contempt of court.

From Paras 10 and 11, (Very IMP)

10) Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. This section mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby that it is not a pre-requisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued.
11) Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith.

Bhushan Kumar and Anr Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 4 April 2012

Citations : [2012 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 794], [2012 SUPREME 2 699], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 4 138], [2012 SLT 3 221], [2012 AIR SC 1747], [2012 SCALE 3 191], [2012 AIOL 161], [2012 CRIMES SC 2 101], [2012 CRLJ SC 2286], [2012 AIR SC 2476], [2012 SCALE 4 191], [2012 SCC 5 424], [2012 SCC CRI 2 872], [2012 JT 4 127], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 325], [2012 AIC 113 116], [2012 UC 2 1121], [2012 JCR SC 2 269], [2012 ACR SC 2 1514], [2012 LW CRL 2 33], [2012 PLJR 2 422], [2012 JLJR 2 307], [2012 RLW SC 3 2467], [2012 SCC 5 422], [2012 DRJ 130 225], [2012 ALT CRI SC 3 223], [2012 AIR SCW 2476], [2012 DLT SC 189 252]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71570434/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1de4b0149711415a6b

Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has held that when proceeding against parents were quashed on the ground that Magistrate had taken cognizance after three years, husband also gets same benefit.

Although, the learned Single Judge of High Court dealt with various points raised by the appellants and negatived the same by recording the detailed order, his attention does not appear to have been drawn to the order dated 24.10.2006 passed by the co-ordinate bench in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003 whereby the proceedings of CC No.240/2002 were quashed qua the parents of the appellants on the ground that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance after three years. Respondent No.2 is not shown to have challenged the order passed in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003. Therefore, that order will be deemed to have become final. We are sure that if attention of the learned Single Judge, who decided Criminal Petition No.4152/2006 had been drawn to the order passed by another learned Single Judge in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003, he may have, by taking note of the fact that the learned Magistrate did not pass an order for condonation of delay or extension of the period of limitation in terms of Section 473 Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings of CC No.240/2002.

Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007

Citations: [2007 AIOL 1286], [2007 SCALE 14 321], [2007 SCC 13 165], [2008 CRLJ SC 1375], [2007 SCR 13 478], [2009 SCC CRI 1 170], [2008 AIR SC 787], [2008 AIC SC 61 102], [2008 CRILJ 1375]

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.

G.Sagar Suri and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 January, 2000

Posted on December 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Supreme Court has held that, there is no bar to pursue Quash at High Court under sec 482 CrPC, even when a Discharge was pending in the Trial Court under sec 239 CrPC or 245 CrPC.

It was submitted by Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the second respondent, that the appellants have already filed an application in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate for their discharge and that this Court should not interfere in the criminal proceedings which are at the threshold. We do not think that on filing of any application for discharge, High Court Cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In this connection, reference may be made to two decisions of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., [1998] 5 SCC 749 and Ashok Chaturvedi & Ors. v. Shitul H. Chanchani & Anr., [1998] 7 SCC 698, wherein it has been specifically held that though the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be groundless but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding quashed against them when no offence has been made out against them and still why must they undergo the agony of a criminal trial.

G.Sagar Suri and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 January, 2000

Citations: 2000 C Cr. LR(SC) 136 : JT 2000(1) SC 360, (2000)2 SCC 636, J.T. 2000 Vol. 1 page 126

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1699144/

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

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

Alok Jaiswal and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 8 August, 2019

Posted on August 18, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Nice deal… Paid Rs.22 lakhs and got mukthi from all criminal cases in one swell-swoop… Courtesy: Allahabad High Court.

Alok Jaiswal and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 8 August, 2019

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 482 – Quash

Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and Ors Vs State of Maharastra and Anr on 17 Dec 2008

Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs Mohan Singh and Ors on 08 Oct 1974

Harini H Vs Kavya H and Ors on 17 Jun 2021

Bhushan Kumar and Anr Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 4 April 2012

Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007

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

G.Sagar Suri and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 January, 2000

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

Alok Jaiswal and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 8 August, 2019