A.Sujatha Vs C.Nagaraju on 29 January, 2016

Posted on November 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A well-reasoned judgment from Hon’ble First Class Magistrate ably supported by a catena of judgments held that this DVC was an attempt by the knife to usurp the property and nothing to do with domestic violence.

Last nail in the coffin on the money-hungry, gold-digging knife:

When she is having capacity to maintain herself then extending her palm for the alms of the respondent is highly un-acceptable. So as per the Domestic Violence Act, though it is a beneficial legislation but the basic principles cannot be deviated under the facts and circumstances of this case and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance and for residence.

A.Sujatha Vs C.Nagaraju on 29 January, 2016

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/

Mahipal Singh Rana Vs State Of U.P on 5 July, 2016

Posted on October 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

What can I say about this case and the advocate involved? Read for yourself.

Mahipal Singh Rana Vs State Of U.P on 5 July, 2016

Some news articles around this advocate here and here.

Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. on 13 November, 2009

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this well-reasoned judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that in addition to the approach courts should take while considering whether the main Act as well as its amendment are prospective or retrospective in effect.

FACTS:

The petitioners filed a petition on 16.12.2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class against the respondents (her husband and in-laws), under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to grant certain reliefs as mentioned therein, which was taken on file as D.V.C. NO.163 of 2008. The petitioners also filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the same was taken on file as D.V.C. No.10 of 2009.

Criminal Petition No.346 of 2009 is filed to quash all further proceedings in D.V.C. No.163 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, whereas, Criminal Petition No.7978 of 2009 is filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.10 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur district.

ISSUES:

Whether the Quash petition is liable to be dismissed? Whether the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation?

DECISION:

It was held that the intention of the legislation is to provide certain remedies to the victims of domestic violence and also to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society.

Therefore, the acts of violence occurred prior to 25.10.2006 would come within the meaning of ‘domestic violence’ as defined under the Act. For the foregoing reasons, the Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation. It was thus held that there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings and both the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed. The Criminal Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

From para 22,

If a statute does not provide an offender liable to any penalty (conviction or sentence) in favour of the state, it can be said that legislation will be classified as remedial statute. Remedial statutes are known as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented legislations. A remedial statute receives a liberal construction. In case of remedial statutes, doubt is resolved in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted. Whenever a legislation prescribes a duty or penalty for breach of it, it must be understood that the duty is prescribed in the interest of the community or some part of it and the penalties prescribed as a sanction for its purpose. None of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has direct penal consequences.

Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. on 13 November, 2009

Citations:

Other Sources:

Key Contributor:

Advocate Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)

Cell:

Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Nice judgment from Apex Court in quashing the false DVC on relatives of husband.

Ashish Dixit & Ors Vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 7 January, 2013

Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1077], [2013 ALJ 2 231], [2013 BOMCR CRI 1 626], [2013 CRI LJ 1178], [2013 CRIMES SC 1 216], [2013 KHC 1 358], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 410], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 340], [2013 SCC 4 176], [2013 AIR SC 776], [2013 CRLJ 1178], [[2013 CCR 1 452], [2013 SLT 1 545], [2013 SCC CR 2 337], [2013 BCR CRI 1 626], [2013 RAJ 2 318], [2013 RCR CRI 2 340], [2013 AICLR 1 713], [2013 ALLLJ 2 231], [2013 HINDULR 1 192]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2de4b0149711415bbc

The index page is here.

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A landmark quash judgment by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which laid down few criteria only under which DVC quash under CrPC 482 is maintainable.

From Para 13,

The next aspect is having regard to the fact that the reliefs provided under Section 18 to 22 are civil reliefs and enquiry under Sec. 12 of D.V. Act is not a trial of a criminal case, whether the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings that they were unnecessarily roped in and thereby continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court etc., pleas. In my considered view, having regard to the facts that the scheme of the Act which provide civil reliefs and the Magistrate can lay his own procedure by not taking coercive steps in general course and the enquiry being not the trial of a criminal offence, the respondents cannot rush with 482 Cr.P.C petitions seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in. They can establish their non involvement in the matter and non-answerability to the reliefs claimed by participating in the enquiry. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.

From Para 14,

14) To sum up the findings:
i) Since the remedies under D.V Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass exparte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that he can insist the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.

ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V. case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State Of Telangana on 16 February, 2015

Citations: 2015 ALD CRL AP 2 470

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71870497/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8dce4b01497111438bd

This decision (with respect to shared householding requirement in DV cases) seems to be overruled by Supreme Court here. This judgment was not considered in the SC judgment.

Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a quash judgment from Hon’ble High of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the DVC on relatives of husband are quashed on grounds that there is ‘no shared household’ and ‘no domestic relationship’ conditions.

5. ( i) Coming back to the facts of the case, all the petitioners are residents of Prakasam District whereas the respondent is a resident of Hyderabad. There is nothing on record to show that the present petitioners had any domestic relationship and lived together with the 2nd respondent in a shared household at any point of time. Further after the proceedings in Crime No.204 of 2010 were quashed by this Court, by orders dated 04.10.2012, the present DV case is filed by the 2nd respondent.
6 . Viewed thus, this Court finds that the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners herein in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed.

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196776515/

Citation:

Earlier 498a case that was quashed is available here.

The index page is here.

Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others on 13 September, 2013

Posted on October 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment of Apex Court giving guidelines or principles to adhere to while condoning delay in appeals.

Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others on 13 September, 2013

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.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Sandeep Pamarati

A.Sujatha Vs C.Nagaraju on 29 January, 2016

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

Mahipal Singh Rana Vs State Of U.P on 5 July, 2016

Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. on 13 November, 2009

Advocate Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)

Cell:

Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Mg.Commit.Of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others on 13 September, 2013

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

Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May 2016