V.Ravi Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 14 December, 2018

Posted on December 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The key contention resolved in this judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court is that “whether the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings being Crime No.54 of 2005 on the grounds that the appellant had withdrawn an earlier complaint without assigning reasons; the transactions being commercial in nature, the ingredients of an offence under the Sections referred to above were absent; and that the remedy of the appellant lay in filing a civil suit.”

From Para 22,

There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute which debars a complainant from making a second complaint on the same allegations, when the first complaint did not lead to conviction, acquittal or discharge.

From Para 23,

when a complaint is dismissed on merits after an inquiry, that a second complaint cannot be made on the same facts. Maybe, as contended by the respondents, the first complaint was withdrawn without assigning any reason. However, that in itself is no ground to quash a second complaint.

This legal principle is called as protection from Double Jeopardy as enshrined in Article 20(2) of Constitution of India as well as 300 CrPC.

V.Ravi Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 14 December, 2018

Landmark judgment cited in this judgment is available here.

Shreya Singhal Vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015

Posted on December 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has struck down the following laws as being violative of Constitutional rights of Citizens.

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).
Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3)(b) being read down to mean that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are going to be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to such material. Similarly, the Information Technology “Intermediary Guidelines” Rules, 2011 are valid subject to Rule 3 sub-rule (4) being read down in the same manner as indicated in the judgment.
Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is struck down being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2).

Shreya Singhal Vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015

Citation: [(2015) 5 SCC 1], [2015 COMPLJ SC 2 143], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 248], [2015 AIR SC 1523], [2015 DLT 218 370], [2015 KLJ 2 292], [2015 KERLT 2 1], [2015 KLT 2 1]

Other Sources : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b244e561097e45a4e264

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark ruling from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that

“We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

But in a para prior to this para, this case was referred to a larger bench (this was a 3-judge bench). But this case was but after two years dismissed as the advocate for appellant dies and the appellant did not pursue the case. Here is the Dismissal Order:

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr on 5 September 2014

Here is the Para 45,

45.We, therefore, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to refer the following, amongst other, questions to be decided by a larger Bench. According to us, the questions are:
1. Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?
2. Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
3. Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

So, this judgment is NOT a landmark judgment as the question of law was NOT decided either by this Court nor by a larger bench of this Court.

Citation: [2011 ANJ SC 1 26], [2010 AIOL 681], [2011 SCC 1 141], [2011 ALLMR CRI SC 346], [2010 SCALE 10 602], [2011 BOMCR SC 2 787], [2011 SCC CRI 2 666], [2011 CRLJ SC 96], [2010 RCR CIVIL SC 4 801], [2010 JT 11 132], [2010 AIR SC 6497], [2011 SCC CIV 1 53]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949767/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aedbe4b0149711414ea0

But this judgment declared it so here.

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

Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 June, 2014

Posted on October 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A peculiar case where the knife filed DV Case on in-laws alone, excluding her husband. The brother-in-law of the knife filed a complaint to police that knife has been filing false cases and police filed a case under IPC 182 after permission from SSP. Knife moved High Court for quash of this case and it was dismissed for lack of merits. Now Supreme Court has set aside this order of High Court and allowed the knife’s petition for quash.

From Para 14,

The complaint, if made, by any woman alleging offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 committed by any member of the family, the matter is to be looked upon seriously. The Police without proper verification and investigation cannot submit a report that no case is made out. The Investigating Agency is required to make proper enquiry not only from the members of the family but also from neighbours, friends and others. After such enquiry, the Investigating Agency may form a definite opinion and file report but it is for the Court to decide finally whether to take cognizance for any offence under any of the provisions of the Act.

This is where the judge takes a tangential swipe at a DV case to 498A case. Quite peculiar indeed.

Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 June, 2014

Citations : [2015 ALD CRL SC 1 518], [2014 SCC 13 25], [2014 SCC CRI 5 517], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 495], [2014 AIR SC 2966], [2014 AIC 140 58], [2014 CRI LJ 4069], [2014 AIOL 394], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 3 426], [2014 CRLJ SC 4069], [2014 JLJR SC 3 263], [2014 JT 8 574], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 175], [2014 SCALE 8 226], [2014 AIR SC 4417], [2014 ALT CRI 3 314], [2014 SCJ 8 179], [2014 AIR SCW 4417]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181157487/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af4ce4b0149711416147

https://advocatespedia.com/Santosh_Bakshi_vs_State_Of_Punjab_And_Ors_on_30_June,_2014

The High Court order that is set aside is given below.

Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 July, 2013

B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

Posted on October 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, which laid down the law that under CrPC 482, High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable case such as 498A and 406 IPC.

From Para 13-15,

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V Rao v. L.H.V Prasad 2000 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the code.

B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

Citations : [2003 ACR SC 2 1305], [2003 AIR SC 1386], [2003 ALD CRI 1 842], [2003 ALR 51 222], [2003 ALT CRI 2 60], [2003 ALT SC 5 4], [2003 CALLT SC 3 32], [2003 CGLJ 2 35], [2003 CTC 3 54], [2003 DMC SC 1 524], [2003 GLH 2 351], [2003 JKJ SC 2 439], [2003 JT SC 3 277], [2003 KLT SC 2 1062], [2003 OLR 2 101], [2003 RCR CRIMINAL 2 888], [2003 SCALE 3 214], [2003 SCC 4 675], [2003 SCR 2 1104], [2003 UC 2 827], [2003 UJ 2 953], [2003 SCC CRI 848], [2003 CRI LJ 2028]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/469138/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adc9e4b0149711412459

Another landmark judgment which cites this judgment is here.

Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012

Posted on October 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The legal contention to be decided authoritatively in this case in front of Apex Court is that “it should not be understood to have meant that Judges can quash any kind of criminal case merely because there has been a compromise between the parties. After all, a crime is an offence against society, and not merely against a private individual”.

This was referred from a 2-judge bench of Apex Court to decide the issue authoritatively and dissolve the ambiguity, if any.

Some or all of the following tests may be relevant to decide whether to quash or not to quash the criminal proceedings in a given case;
(a) the nature and gravity of case;
(b) does the dispute reflect overwhelming and predominantly civil flavour;
(c) would the quashing involve settlement of entire or almost the entire dispute;
(d) the compromise/settlement between parties and/or other facts and the circumstances render possibility of conviction remote and bleak;
(e) not to quash would cause extreme injustice and would not serve ends of justice and
(f) not to quash would result in abuse of process of court.

Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012

The key judgment cited in this judgment is here.

Citations: [2012 SCALE 9 257], [2012 SLT 7 171], [2012 CRLJ SC 4934], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 543], [2012 SCC 10 303], [2012 AIR SC 5333], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 4 428], [2013 SCC CRI 1 160], [2012 CRIMES SC 4 155], [2012 AIOL 413], [2012 SCC CIV 4 1188], [2012 SCC L&S 2 988], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 769], [2012 KLJ 4 141], [2012 KERLT 4 108], [2012 GUJ LH 3 394], [2012 AIR SC SUPP 838], [2013 RLW SC 4 3573], [2013 BLJ 2 289], [2012 SCR 8 753], [2012 KARLJ 5 476], [2012 WLN 4 71], [2012 CGLRW 3 98], [2012 JT SC 9 426], [2012 AIR SCW 5333]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/69949024/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af16e4b014971141590c

https://indianlawportal.co.in/gian-singh-v-state-of-punjab/

Youth Bar Association of India Vs UOI on 7 September, 2016

Posted on October 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein directions were issued to Home Secretaries and DGPs of all States.

The complete directions are given below

(a) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(b) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative/agent/parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the Court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours.
(c) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the Court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(d) The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location.
(e) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post. In case, the States where District Magistrate has a role, he may also assume the said authority. A decision taken by the concerned police officer or the District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
(f) The word ‘sensitive’ apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. The examples given with regard to the sensitive cases are absolutely illustrative and are not exhaustive.
(g) If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not enure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
(h) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved
by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the State. The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the said grievance. As far as the Metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a representation is submitted to the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three officers. The committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.
(i) The competent authority referred to hereinabove shall constitute the committee, as directed herein-above, within eight weeks from today.
(j) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused/his authorized representative/parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the Court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned Court not beyond three days of the submission of the application.
(k) The directions for uploading of FIR in the website of all the States shall be given effect from 15th November, 2016.

Youth Bar Association of India Vs UOI on 7 September, 2016

Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 914], [2017 ELT SC 345 434], [2016 SCC 9 473], [2016 SCC CRI 3 691], [2016 AIR SC 4136], [2016 CTC 5 571], [2016 KLT 3 1035]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151036912/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117e6a2713e17947889bcf

FIRs to be uploaded on police website or official website of Government concerned from 15th November, 2016

Here is the Petition copy.

WRIT-PETITIONCRIMINAL-NO-68-OF-2016-1

Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May 2016

Posted on October 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has uphold the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May, 2016

Citations: [2016 SCC 7 221], [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 550], [2016 AIR SC 2728]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/581180e72713e179479dd9f3

The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.

Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 14 December, 2007

Posted on September 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark quash judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that IPC 406 and IPC 498A is not made out on the parents of the husband and as such the case on them is quashed.

Highlights

Knife Name: Neetu
Husband Name: Ashutosh Misra

He gave me no money for expenditure. When I left Bijnore he gave me only Rs.1/- only. I did not receive any phone from him till 7th November, 1994.
He told me that he has no time to go to Cell and to bring me to Bijnore.
talk to your father to give you Rs.50,000/- and VCR to bring with you.
If you come here alone with the child, we will give you good beatings.
Almost 2 weeks ago, Hira Lal informed me that my husband took away all my belongings with him at 4 A.M.
she stated that, my father-in-law and sister-in-law clearly warned him that till the time I will not bring Rs.50,000/- cash and V.C.R. they will not keep me.
In the charge-sheet, it has been recorded that despite issue of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the complainant and her father by the ASI, neither the complainant nor her father turned up to take back her Stridhan , which was alleged to be with the appellants. It has been noted that the complainant does not want to take back her Stridhan.

Law point from Para 10,

It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.

From Para 19,

Section 498A I.P.C. was introduced with the avowed object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives.

Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors Vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 14 December, 2007

Citations: [2007 SUPREME 8 405], [2008 SCC 2 561], [2008 CRLJ 0 1391], [2008 AIR SC 204], [2008 RCR CRI 1 336], [2008 SCC 1 65], [2007 STPL LE 0 39378], [2008 SCC CRI 1 507], [2008 AD SC 2 398], [2008 BLJR 56 753], [2008 MADLW CRL 2 955], [2008 ACC 60 694], [2008 SCC CRL 1 507], [2008 JT 1 20], [2008 LW CRL 2 955], [2008 ALL MR CRI 1360], [2008 ALT CRI 3 83], [2008 AIR SC 96], [2008 MAHLJ CRI 2 550], [2008 SCC CR 1 507], [2008 CRIMES 1 42], [2008 DRJ 100 3], [2008 UJ 1 107], [2008 MLJ CRI 2 686], [2008 SLT 1 329], [2007 AIOL 1302], [2008 ANJ SC 1 124], [2008 CRLJ SC 1351], [2007 SCALE 14 403], [2007 SCR 13 716], [2008 AIC SC 62 155], [2008 CRI LJ 1391]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1907093/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae46e4b01497114135e4

Thota Venkateswarlu Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another on 2 September, 2011

Posted on September 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in this judgment that,

Having regard to the above, while we see no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision to reject the petitioner’s prayer for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case No.307 of 2007, we also make it clear that the learned Magistrate may proceed with the trial relating to the offences alleged to have been committed in India. However, in respect of offences alleged to have been committed outside India, the learned Magistrate shall not proceed with the trial without the sanction of the Central Government as envisaged in the proviso to Section 188 Cr.P.C.

Thota Venkateswarlu Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another on 2 September, 2011

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Reportable Judgement or Order

V.Ravi Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 14 December, 2018

Shreya Singhal Vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 June, 2014

B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

Gian Singh Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2012

Youth Bar Association of India Vs UOI on 7 September, 2016

Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May 2016

Onkar Nath Mishra and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 14 December, 2007

Thota Venkateswarlu Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Another on 2 September, 2011