C.H. Siva Prasad and Ors Vs State of A.P. on 13 August 1998

Posted on September 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In line with Gurbaksh Singh case here, AP High Court also delivered this judgment holding that

From Para 21,

It is also required to notice that an application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC as the case may be can be filed only after the arrest of the accused person or detained without a warrant. It would not be possible for any accused to file any application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC while the operation of the order under Section 438 Cr.PC is in force. Under those circumstances, the question of directing the accused person to apply for and obtain a regular bail even while the directions issued in exercise of the power under Section 438 Cr.PC are in operation may become difficult and such application may not be maintainable.

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, then held,

In Para 22,

On an analysis and a close reading of the decisions referred to above, the following propositions would emerge:
(1) This Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power and jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.PC may direct the release of the accused person in a given case only for a specific period and direct the accused person to apply for and obtain regular bail. This would necessarily mean that the operation of the order would come to an end immediately after the specified time and the accused person has to necessarily surrender or get arrested so as to enable the accused person to file an application under Section 437 or 439 Cr.PC as the case maybe.

(2) This Court or Court of Session in exercise of its power and discretion under Section 438 of the Code can restrict the operation of directions issued under the said provision at the initial stage and extend the same until further orders;

(3) The Court exercising the power and jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code is entitled to issue necessary directions directing release of the accused person in the event of his or her arrest without specifying any period; and

(4) The power and jurisdiction of this Court or Court of Session under Section 438 of the Code is not limited or circumscribed in any manner whatsoever requiring to limit the operation of the directions to release the accused person in the event of his or her arrest.

C.H. Siva Prasad And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 13 August, 1998

Citations: [2

Other Source links:

Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016

Posted on August 31, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held in this revision order, that when the impugned order was not an order passed, as ex parte, the learned magistrate was required to hold as inquiry in a DV Case and then should have recorded his finding (to grant interim relief or not).

Sri Monojit Banerjee Vs Smt Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016

Citations: [2

Other Source links:

Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014

Posted on August 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this very good divorce judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, it is held that the knife caused metal cruelty on husband and his parents for the following reason,

the Appellant established that the Respondent could not substantiate the allegations of cruelty in the criminal case. Even the allegations of cruelty made by the Respondent in the written statement in the present case could not be established by her;
The Appellant and his family members were required to attend Criminal Court on 56 different dates from the year 2001 to 2004. Considering the manner in which the criminal case proceeded, the Appellant and his family members were subjected to humiliation, trauma and agony as set out in the deposition of the Appellant;
The Respondent made a very serious defamatory allegation against the Appellant, both in the written statement and in her evidence, that due to ill treatment by the Appellant, she started suffering from arthritis. The Respondent made no efforts to substantiate the said allegation. Thus, the Respondent made unfounded defamatory allegation against the Appellant;
Not only that the Respondent did not substantiate the said allegation, even the cause of death of her father was not brought on record. Even this allegation is an unfounded defamatory allegation;

Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February, 2014

Citations:

Other Source links:

The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.

Sri Rameshwar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2018

Posted on August 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court allowed Exemption from Personal Appearance under CrPC 205 to parents and family of Arnesh Kumar.

Sri Rameshwar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2018

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016

Posted on July 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Legal point explained: Court (Civil and Criminal) can allow amendments to the complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court, either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint

This is a judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court where in the issue that arises is whether a court dealing with the petition/complaint filed under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) has power to allow amendment to the petition/complaint originally filed.

Original reliefs requested in DV Case

“a) to provide protection to the life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondents;
b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance;
c) to grant such other relief or reliefs if the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

These are the dole outs the begging knife requested Court to allow in this instant amendment petition

a) To provide protection to life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondent.
b) To grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and her 2nd child to their maintenance instead of Rs.5000/-
c) Direct the respondent to return the Sridhana amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and other sari samanas and marriage batuvu presented to the respondent worth about 2 sovereigns wrist watch, 7 sovereign gold chain presented by the complainant and her parents.
d) Direct the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the complaint for subjecting the compliant to physical and mental harassments besides including acts of Domestic Violence.
e) Direct the respondent to return the sari samans and other goods like worth more than Rs.10,00,000/- as per the list annexed herewith.
f) Direct the respondent to pay the cost of, litigation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- so far spent by the complainant persuing her litigation.
g) Direct the 1st respondent to provide separate residence by taking rent portion with monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-
h) Directing the respondent to return the original study certificates, medical certificates, deposits certificates and receipts etc. in the prayer portion paragraphs the following amendment by deleting the prayer original para
b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance.”

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016

Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 531]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b4f1e561097e45a4e644

Case Index is here.

The index page for DV Cases is here.

S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015

Posted on July 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Legal point explained: Court (Civil and Criminal) can allow amendments to the complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court, either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint.

Case brief: The complainant wanted to amend his complaint to include a poem which is the cause of defamation suit he filed on his step-brother.

From Para 17,

Insofar as merits of the contention regarding allowing of amendment application, it is true that there is no specific provision in the Code to amend either a complaint or a petition filed under the provisions of the Code, but the Courts have held that the petitions seeking such amendment to correct curable infirmities can be allowed even in respect of complaints.

S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July, 2015

Citations: [

Other Source links:

The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.

Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 4 July, 2018

Posted on July 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment Justice Dharam Chand Choudhary has affirmed that under section 23 of DV Act, the Magistrate should be satisfied that the DV application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed and act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit.

As such the case is returned back to trial court to proceed in according to law.

Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 4 July, 2018

Citations: [2

Other Source links:

Hanumanthu Naik Vs Nirmala Bai on 11 June, 2018

Posted on June 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This quash judgment is from Hon’ble AP High Court at Hyderabad, which is based on the conclusion that there are no specific allegations on A2 and A3, parents of the husband (A1).

Another important aspect is that this quash is done also based on another quash order for same High Court in regards to other accused (A4, A5 and A6) in this very same case, specifically because of same allegations on them too.

[google-drive-embed url=”https://drive.google.com/file/d/137Au9pa288Id2UqPir4o_zi1FcdX3_rq/preview?usp=drivesdk” title=”Hanumanthu Naik Vs Nirmala Bai on 11 June, 2018.pdf” icon=”https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf” width=”100%” height=”400″ style=”embed”]

E.Krishna and Ors Vs Srinivasa Chary on 17 November 2017

Posted on June 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this quash judgment, AP High Court has held that

“The acts of the persons to redress their grievances through the available mode cannot, at any rate, be termed as acts made with an intention to defame the persons, against whom grievance is expressed.”

E.Krishna And Others Vs Srinivasa Chary on 17 November, 2017

Citations:

Other Source links:

The Index for Defamation Judgments is 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

Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful Judgment from our Supreme Court. See Hon’ble Apex Court has in detailed analyzed the contention of to quash or not to quash. This has become a landmark judgment which provides the below guidelines to quash/discharge.

Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/ complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/ complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

Read the way in which Justice J.S. Khehar has answered the above steps and finally quashed the High Court order to not discharge the accused.

Definitely a interesting read !!

Rajiv Thapar & Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013

Citations: [2

Other Source links:

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Work-In-Progress Article

C.H. Siva Prasad and Ors Vs State of A.P. on 13 August 1998

Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016

Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014

Sri Rameshwar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2018

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016

S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015

Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 4 July, 2018

Hanumanthu Naik Vs Nirmala Bai on 11 June, 2018

E.Krishna and Ors Vs Srinivasa Chary on 17 November 2017

Rajiv Thapar and Ors Vs Madan Lal Kapoor on 23 January, 2013