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 2020Citations: [2]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12422589/
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.
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.
G.Sagar Suri and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 28 January, 2000It 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.
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
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, 1998Indiankanoon.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
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, 2019Reproduced 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
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, 2007Citations: [2007 (4) JCC 3074]
Other Source links:
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
In this judgment, Punjab & Haryana HC held that “Complaint under DV Act not maintainable after divorce”.
Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016Citations: [
Other Source links:
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
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”]
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
