M.S Jayaraj Vs Commissioner of Excise Kerala and Ors on 29 Sep 2000

Posted on March 3, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A simple but crucial observation by the Apex Court.

From Para 18,

18. We have difficulty to accept the said contention for more than one reason. If the rule-making authority had intended it to be so they would have effortlessly used the words “outside local limits specified in the licence” in the proviso because the same words have been used in sub- rule (1). As the proviso gives powers to the Excise Commissioner to order removal of a shop to a place “outside the limits specified in this sub- rule” it can only refer to the limits specified in that sub-rule and not elsewhere. It must be noted in this context that sub-rule (2) specifies certain limits such as “within 400 metres” (for toddy shops) and “within 200 metres” (for FL 1 shops) from certain institutions mentioned therein. It is with reference to those limits which are specified in sub-rule (2) that the proviso confers power on the Excise Commissioner to pass order for removal.

M.S Jayaraj Vs Commissioner of Excise Kerala and Ors on 29 Sep 2000

Casemine Version:

M.S Jayaraj Vs Commissioner of Excise Kerala and Ors on 29 Sep 2000 (CM)

Citations : [2000 AIR SC 3674], [2000 SCC 7 552], [2000 SUPREME 7 105], [2000 JT SUPP 1 487], [2000 AIRSC 3266], [2000 SCALE 6 674], [2000 ECC 72 7], [2000 KLT SC 3 820], [2000 SUPP SCR 3 616], [2000 AIR SCW 3674], [2000 SUPPSCR 3 616]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1919476/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad6fe4b014971141169c

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022

Posted on February 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court quashed the FIR against relatives, which was riddled with vague allegations.

From Para 12,
12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimoniallitigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage,now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personalscores against the husband and his relatives.

From Para 18,

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of thehusband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, ifleft unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceedingagainst the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

From Para 21 and 22,

21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022

Posted on February 18, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court held that when there is a genuine settlement between the parties and they are living happily together, such settlement has to be upheld by High Court and quash the 498A IPC case. This cites B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

From Para 5, (The bozos who file false matrimonial cases do NOT realize what they are unleashing; in this case Armyman lost his job!)

5. The appeal preferred by the appellant, being Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2019, was dismissed by Sessions Judge, Gumla on 30.05.2019. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the High Court, being Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2019. While the said revision petition was pending, two significant events took place. The firsthad been sanction of competent authority for dismissal of the appellant from his military service w.e.f. 14.07.2020for having been convicted of the offence under Section 498-A IPC. In the second relevant event, on 24.11.2020, the appellant and the respondent No. 2 submitted a jointapplication before the High Court, inter alia, stating that with the intervention and advice of family members, common relatives and friends, they had entered intosettlement and resolved all their disputes. It was submitted that upon the appellant approaching his wife forsettlement with assurance to keep her with full honour and dignity, the proposal was accepted by the wife (respondent No. 2) with some conditions, while also undertaking todischarge her matrimonial duties. It was submitted that the parties were residing together with love and affectionand with no dispute between them. It was, therefore jointly prayed that since the dispute was a family dispute that arose due to miscommunication and misunderstanding, now the revision petition may be disposed of in view of the changed circumstances and the family status of the parties. This application was registered as I.A. No. 6052 of 2020.

From Para 7,

7. Having examined the matter in its totality, it appears that the High Court, while disposing of the revision petition with the application moved by the parties, did not pause to consider that maintaining of conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC would not be securing the ends of justice and with such conviction being maintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again land itself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent No. 2 both have reiterated their stand that they have resolved their disputes and are living together while leading a happy conjugal life.

From Para 10,

10. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and taking note of the terms of settlement as stated in the application moved before the High Court which include the undertaking of the appellant that he would be nominating the respondent No. 2 as the nominee in his service record; and where the parties are said to be leading a happy conjugal life, we are clearly of the view that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and quashed all the proceedings with annulment of the orders against the appellant. The High Court having not done so, we are inclined to adopt this course so as to secure the ends of justice.

Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017

Posted on December 1, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single-judge bench of Patna High Court held as follows,

It appears from the averment made in the instant petition that at the relevant time the petitioner was Managing Director and whole time Director of the Company and the complaint was filed by Registrar of the Company under section 58(A) of the Companies Act read with Rule-3 (i)(a) proviso (i) Rule 10 of the Company within (Acceptance and Deposits) Rules, 1975. The reason for rejection of the application under Section 205 Cr. P.C. as appears from Annexure-2 that the offence is non-bailable. The court below committed error of jurisdiction in ignoring the fact that in the instant case after taking cognizance, summon was issued by the court below and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Harsh Das case reported in 1998(1) PLJR 502, the court was required to consider the application of the petitioner on its own merits without being prejudiced by the facts that the offence as alleged is non-bailable. In similar circumstances, a Bench of this Court in Cr. Revision Nos. 543, 454 of 2006 in the case of Manish Giri vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (1) PLJR has discussed the scope under section 205 Cr.P.C. and noticing the Division Bench judgment in the case of Ram Harsh Das (supra) and various other judgments held out that power to refuse permission under section 205 Cr.P.C. should not be used as a substitute for ultimate punishment which could be awarded. The court decided the matter but also in the last paragraph issued direction to the Registrar to circulate the copy of the order for to all the Civil Courts in the State of Bihar for guidelines of Judicial Officers in future.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment which was circulated to all the Civil Courts, the court below rejected the application of the petitioner filed to dispense with personal appearance vide order dated 9.12.2010 and even the revisional court in Cr. Revision No. 97 of 2011 has failed to exercise judicial discretion for the ends of justice and as such the petitioner was constraint to approach this Court by way of filing the instant application.

Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017

Casemine version:

Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017 (CM ver)

Sukla Mukherjee Vs State on 13 Dec 1994

Posted on December 1, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Calcutta High Court held as follows,

The Ld. Magistrate dismissed that application on the ground, inter alia, that Section 205 of the Cr. P.C. is not applicable in a case which is instituted on police report. That is not the interpretation of Section 205. Sub-section (1) of Section 205 does not limit the application only to a complaint case, it can also be applied even in a case instituted on police report. So, the reason that has been given by the Ld. Magistrate for refusing the personal exemption of the petitioner is not at all logical and it is illegal.

Casemine version:

Sukla Mukherjee Vs State on 13 Dec 1994

Citations:

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/294422/

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Sukla-Mukherjee-Versus-State-1994-12-13

Index here.

Md. Naim @ Md. Naimuddin Vs. State of Bihar and Ors on 08 Dec 2006

Posted on December 1, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Single judge bench of Patna High Court held as follows,

First two paras

1. Heard. Present application is directed against the Trial Court’s order dated 16.6.2006 by which the petitioner’s prayer for exemption from personal appearance in terms of Section 205 Cr.P.C., has been rejected on the sole ground, that the prosecution is for an offence under Section 498A which is a warrant case, and, as such, the privilege under Section 205 Cr.P.C. cannot be extended.
2. To my mind, such an order is not sanctioned in law and shows the inability of the learned Magistrate to read the provision correctly. Section 205 Cr.P.C. is preconditioned on summons being issued at the first instance. Here, it is not disputed and is apparent from the impugned order itself, that summons were issued at the first instance. Summons for appearance predicates appearance through Lawyer or in person, it does not provide that a person has to appear in person. Therefore, it is simple that if pursuant to summons issued, a person to whom summons are issued appears through Lawyer, then compliance is complete and his appearance is valid. In such a case, no Court can then reject the appearance and direct that the persons summoned, must appear in person as by appearance through the lawyer, he has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court. He can now be taken into custody only, if, pursuant to his appearance and the bond executed for continuing to appear he defaults and not otherwise.

Casemine version:

Md. Naimuddin Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 08 Dec 2006 (CM)

Legal Quest version:

Md. Naimuddin Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 08 Dec 2006 (LQ)

Citations : [2006 SCC ONLINE PAT 977], [2007 PLJR 2 260]

Other sources:

Index here.

Renuka Vs Sangappa on 11 Dec 2019

Posted on November 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Karnataka HC held as follow with regards to Cruelty and Desertion grounds as found under Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

From Para 9,

9. The Trial Court examined PWs-1 to 3 and RW-1 and perused Ex.P1 and Exs.R1 to R8. The appellants attitude towards the respondent and staying away from him for years together and so also filing a petition for maintenance in Criminal miscellaneous No.95/2007 and partition suit in O.S.No.73/2005, she has not made any efforts to join her husband. On the other hand, the respondent had filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and petition was not continued on account of appellants readiness and willingness to join the respondent due to which the respondent had withdrawn the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Even thereafter the appellant had not joined the respondent. The appellant has not apprised the Trial Court as well as before this Court by producing any material evidence and so also what efforts she has made all these years to join the respondent. The contention of the appellant that she is ready to join her husband is only an afterthought for the reasons that she had ample opportunity of joining the respondent during the pendency of M.C.No.4/2010. Now we are in the year 2019. Even during the period from 30.11.2013, the date on which M.C.No.4/2010 was disposed off, till date she has not shown her willingness to join her husband. If her intention was really to join her husband, both Trial and this Court would have made necessary efforts to refer the matter to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre. Therefore, the attitude of the appellant towards respondent for these many years resulted in failure of marriage among the appellant and the respondent. Once the appellant failed to return to her marital home and remained in her parental house for more than one and half decade amounts to both desertion and cruelty.

From Para 16,

16. The principle is, thus, settled that whether in the facts and circumstances of a given case, the plaintiff has been able to make out a case of grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty would depend upon the nature of pleadings and evidence in that case and there can be no straitjacket formula nor an exhaustive list of instances can be prepared, where cruelty is said to have been committed by one or other party to the marriage. Cruelty can also not be inferred by applying any formula because the said question is to be determined keeping in view the social status of the parties, their financial and other conditions, the atmosphere and the kind of employment or vocation which they carry out would all be important to interfere whether on the given set of allegations it has become difficult for the plaintiff to live with the other side and the behaviour of such degree which amounts to the cruelty.

Renuka Vs Sangappa on 11 Dec 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.legitquest.com/case/renuka-v-sangappa/1a2cde

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Renuka-Versus-Sangappa-2019-12-11

Amish Devgan Vs Union of India and Ors on 07 Dec 2020

Posted on October 27, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 84,

84. Lastly, we would also like to clarify that Section 179 of the Criminal Code permits prosecution of cases in the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence has been committed or consequences have ensued. Section 186 of the Criminal Code relates to cases where two separate charge-sheets have been filed on the basis of separate FIRs and postulates that the prosecution would proceed where the first charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of the FIR that is first in point of time. Principle underlying section 186 can be applied at the pre-charge-sheet stage, that is, post registration of
FIR but before charge-sheet is submitted to the Magistrate. In such cases ordinarily the first FIR, that is, the FIR registered first in point of time, should be treated as the main FIR and others as statements under Section 162 of the Criminal Code. However, in exceptional cases and for good reasons, it will be open to the High Court or this Court, as the case may be, to treat the subsequently registered FIR as the principal FIR. However, this should not cause any prejudice, inconvenience or harassment to either the victims, witnesses or the person who is accused. We have clarified the aforesaid position to avoid any doubt or debate on the said aspect.

Amish Devgan Vs Union of India and Ors on 07 Dec 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179868451/

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/amish-devgan-versus-union-of-india-and-others

Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971

Posted on October 16, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed this Judgment regd

After a consideration of the various decisions referred to above, we are of the opinion that the propositions laid down in English decisions dealing with libel that the actual words alleged to be used must be stated in the indictment cannot be applied on all fours when dealing with the cases of defamation by spoken words under Section 499 I. P. C. it will be highly desirable no doubt if the actual words stated to have been used by an accused and which are alleged to be defamatory are reproduced by the complainant. The actual words used or the statements made may be reproduced verbatim by the complainant if the words are few and the statement is very brief. But in cases where the words spoken are too many or the statements made are too long, in our opinion, it will be the height of technicality to insist that the actual words and the entire statements should be reproduced verbatim. The object of having, if possible, the actual words or the statements before the court is to enable it to consider whether those words or the statements are defamatory in nature. That purpose or object will be served if the complainant is able to reproduce in his complaint or evidence in a substantial measure the words of imputation alleged to have been uttered. If the statements or the words placed before the court by the complainant are held to be not defamatory, it will mean that the complainant will have to lose. Therefore it is to his interest to get a proper adjudication from, the court that as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the court. But a complaint cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that the actual words spoken or the statements made have not been stated in the complaint. From the point of view of accused also it is necessary that the matters alleged to be defamatory in the complaint must be so stated as to enable them to know the nature of the allegations that they have to meet.

Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1946272/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab73e4b014971140c842

Citations:

Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 22 Nov 2018

Posted on September 25, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 22 Nov 2018

Citations:

Other Sources:

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Reportable Judgement or Order

M.S Jayaraj Vs Commissioner of Excise Kerala and Ors on 29 Sep 2000

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022

Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022

Ajay Kumar Saboo Vs State of Bihar on 30 Jun 2017

Sukla Mukherjee Vs State on 13 Dec 1994

Md. Naim @ Md. Naimuddin Vs. State of Bihar and Ors on 08 Dec 2006

Renuka Vs Sangappa on 11 Dec 2019

Amish Devgan Vs Union of India and Ors on 07 Dec 2020

Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971

Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 22 Nov 2018