Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 10 January, 2014

Posted on March 20, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex court held some key aspects in this landmark judgment such as,

What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised?
Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. could only mean evidence tested by cross examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?
Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?
What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood convicted?
Does the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?

Citations : [2014 SCC CRI 2 86], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 623], [2014 SUPREME 1 132], [2014 SLT 1 465], [2014 AIOL 21], [2014 SCC 3 92], [2014 CRIMES SC 1 133], [2014 AIR SC 1400], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 1 772], [2014 ALLMR CRI SC 801], [2014 AIR SC 667], [2014 CRLJ SC 1118], [2014 JLJR SC 2 385], [2014 SCALE 1 241], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 26], [2014 KLJ 1 410], [2014 AIC 135 86], [2014 ALD CRL SC 2 152], [2014 PLJR 2 482], [2014 KHC 1 170], [2014 ALLCC 85 313], [2014 CCR SC 1 244], [2014 ADJ 1 727], [2014 LW CRL 1 440], [2014 UC 1 304], [2014 CGLRW SC 1 491], [2014 RLW SC 1 727], [2014 SCJ 2 366], [2015 NCC 1 613], [2014 AD SC 1 609], [2014 JT SC 1 412], [2014 CAL LJ 2 75], [2014 KLT SC 1 336], [2014 AIR SCW 667]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78958066/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af56e4b014971141618b

The latest case law from SC on this subject is here.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019

Posted on March 8, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

A diabolical Medical college management played a cunning cat and mouse game with MCI, Government and the hon’ble Supreme Court of India to cheat and get permission to do admissions for medical courses in their college and paid the hefty price.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 51]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194049971/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c7164069eff4312dfbb5f69

Index of all Perjury case laws is here.

State Of Punjab and Anr Vs Jalour Singh and Ors on 18 January, 2008

Posted on January 25, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

State Of Punjab and Anr Vs Jalour Singh and Ors on 18 January, 2008

Citations : [2008 SCC CIV 1 669], [2008 SCC CRI 1 524], [2008 SCC L&S 1 535], [2008 AIR SC 1209], [2008 KLJ 1 887], [2008 AIC SC 64 262], [2008 JT 2 83], [2008 SCALE 2 52], [2008 RCR CIVIL 1 857], [2008 AIR SC 0 1196], [2009 TAC 1 819], [2008 ALLSCR 0 692], [2008 SCJ 2 95], [2008 SCC 3 660], [2008 TNMAC 1 244], [2008 KHC 2 89], [2008 AIOL 112], [2008 ARBLR SC 1 257], [2008 SCR 1 922], [2008 MLJ SC 5 311], [2008 AIR SCW 1196], [2008 KLT SC 2 236], [2008 ACJ SC 2874]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/483834/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae95e4b0149711414361

Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015

Posted on January 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Dipak Misra dole out judgment, even the judicially separated folks are also within the ambit of Aggrieved person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the view taken by lower courts and held that the status of the parties did not become different due to a decree of judicial separation. There is a distinction between the decree for divorce and the decree of judicial separation. So, the finding of the lower courts, that the parties having been judicially separated, the appellant had ceased to be an aggrieved person, is “wholly unsustainable”.

Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015

Citations: [2016 AJR 1 545], [2016 ALD CRL SC 1 46], [2016 CALLT SC 1 17], [2016 JCC SC 1 31], [2016 JLJR 1 93], [2016 LW 3 193], [2016 NCC 1 239], [2016 PLJR 1 158], [2016 SCC 2 705], [2016 WLN SC 1 52], [2015 AD SC 12 101], [2015 CCR SC 4 256], [2015 CRIMES SC 4 384], [2015 DMC SC 3 823], [2015 KLT SC 4 999], [2015 SCALE 12 521], [2015 UC 3 2229], [2015 JT 11 132], [2015 SLT 8 675], [2015 AIOL 4593], [2016 CRLJ SC 330], [2016 SCC CRI 1 810], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 1229], [2016 GUJ LH 1 1], [2016 AIC 157 198], [2016 ALLCC SC 92 443], [2016 CGLJ SC 1 105], [2016 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 152], [2016 RCR CIVIL SC 1 151], [2016 SCC CIV 2 223]

Gambhirsinh R.Dekare Vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Anr on 11 March 2013

Posted on January 16, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, to prosecute someone who may have approved off or issued directions to print a certain news, teh allegation to the effect of identifying the person responsible in FIR is sufficient. Truthfulness of the allegations had to be adjudicated in trial.

Gambhirsinh R.Dekare Vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel & Anr on 11 March, 2013

Citations: [

Vineet Narain and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 18 December 1997

Posted on December 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, it has given a statutory shape to the CVC and to endow it with wider powers including supervision over Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Indeed the Supreme Court, while giving the said directions had relied upon the report of the Independent Review Committee (IRC) comprising Shri B. G. Deshmukh, former Cabinet Secretary, Shri N. N. Vohra, Principal Secretary to the PM and Shri S. V. Giri, Central Vigilance Commissioner, which Committee was constituted under the Government Order dated 8th September, 1997. The directions of the Supreme Court are quite elaborate and they extend to the appointment, powers and functioning of CVC, CBI and ED all designed to insulate the said institutions from political control and to invest them with good amount of independence coupled with accountability.

Vineet Narain & Others Vs Union Of India & Another on 18 December, 1997

Citation: [1998 CRI LJ 1208], [1997 SUPREME 10 476], [1998 SLT 1 518], [1997 SCALE 7 656], [1996 AWC SC 1 465], [1998 CRLJ 104 1208], [1998 CCR 1 190], [1998 AIR SC 889], [1998 AIR SC 645], [1998 SCC CR 307], [1998 SCC 1 226], [1997 JT SC 10 247], [1998 CRIMES 1 12], [1997 SUPP SCR 6 595], [1998 GLT 1 11], [1998 RCR CRIMINAL 1 357], [1998 SCC CRI 307]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1203995/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad17e4b0149711410838#7

Poonam Chand Jain & Anr Vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010

Posted on December 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Basing on this Apex Court judgment here, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “His Lordship held that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘the Code’) is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. This Court explained the exceptional circumstances as (a) where the previous order was passed on incomplete record (b) or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint (c) or the order which was passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or (d) where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings. This Court made it very clear that interest of justice cannot permit that after a decision has been given on a complaint upon full consideration of the case, the complainant should be given another opportunity to have the complaint enquired into again.”

Poonam Chand Jain & Anr Vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010

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.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Reportable Judgement or Order

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 10 January, 2014

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019

State Of Punjab and Anr Vs Jalour Singh and Ors on 18 January, 2008

Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015

Gambhirsinh R.Dekare Vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Anr on 11 March 2013

Vineet Narain and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 18 December 1997

Poonam Chand Jain & Anr Vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010

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