Mr. Rebates

Monday, November 8, 2010

In a False case - truth is subtle and comes out eventually !

Nov 8, 2010

Quash where the allegations in the first information report or complaint did not make out the offence alleged, even if accepted.  Quash where either there was no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly failed to prove the charge.  * *

*2* HC, Cal Md. Ashiruddin & Anr. Vs. State 25-03-08 Supression of material fact disqualifies litigant from relief and definition of material fact. * *

3 SC Onkar Nath Mishra Vs. State 14-12-07 406: explained in detail. Entrustment (creation of obligation) & dishonest misappropriation.

*4* SC Neelu Chopra & Anr Vs. Bharti 07-10-09 406: MLC on record but vague allegations,
no precise and specific details (date) provided. * * 

*5* HC, Delhi Smt. Sangeeta Kalra Vs. State 02-03-07 Vague allegations, no specific details.
While framing charges, trail court must take *entire account* and decide if case is made out or court being used as a tool.  * * 

*6* HC, Delhi Smt. Neera Singh Vs. State 23-02-07 Vague allegation against all relatives not to be accepted at face value. Before framing charge, *careful scrutiny* of allegations by court required. Compliance of rules framed for maintenance of list under DPA should be insisted.  Proof of dowry or gifts to be provided.

* * *7* HC, MP Smt. Kamna Chouhan Vs. State 09-05-07 While investigation improvements by witnesses in complaint are immaterial. * * *8* SC Pepsi Food Ltd & Anr Vs. Special JM 04-11-97 Summoning accused is serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion *as a matter of course.* Summoning order must reflect application of mind to facts of case and applicable law. Magistrate to carefully scrutinize and then check prima facie offence commitment. If complaint does not make out any case, accused must not undergo agony of
criminal trail. *
 * *9* SC V Bhagat Vs. D Bhagat 19-11-93 Landmark judgment defining cruelty. Despite all allegations of cruelty wife wants to live with husband proves that she wants to make life miserable hell for husband. 

 * 10* HC, P & H Sudha Vs. Narendra 09-02-10 Mere allegations not sufficient to establish any physical cruelty. Not everything is dowry. 

* * 11 SC Gopal Vs. State 13-02-09 498A part (a) & (b) defined. Evidence must for dowry.    

12 HC, Delhi Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. State 12-10-07 406: clear & specific allegations/details are necessary. General or sweeping statements are of no value. Roping in as many relatives is wrong.   13 SC M. Madhusudan Rao Vs. State 24-10-08 Delay in FIR with no proper explanation, to be treated as after thought. Veracity of complaint doubtful.   

*14* HC, Delhi Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand 19-05-03 Landmark judgment defining cruelty. Various definitions & explanations. 498A cruelty is much higher & sterner degree than ordinary cruelty used for divorce. This cruelty should be grave, serious, causing injury, hurt or driving a woman to suicide. Not only this, conduct should be willful / intentional which is essential factor. Petition highly misconceived & is used as tool for ransom & jeopardy. Good law but implementation bad, being misused for bargaining & blackmailing. * 

* 15 HC, Delhi Kanchan Gulatti Vs. State 12-09-07 Criminal law cannot be allowed to settle personal scores. Court no tool for this.   

*16 HC, P & H Sanjay Lata Vs. State 19-01-09 Delay in FIR with no proper explanation, to be treated as after thought. Complaint & complainant doubtful. Not safe to base conviction on it. Contradictory statements at different stages leads to perjury.  
*17 SC Manju Ram Kalita Vs. State 29-05-09 498A: Cruelty definition. Cruelty has to be continuous and on record.   18 SC Sanapareddy Vs. State 13-12-07 Limitation, on 498A & 406, if delay not properly explained. Condanation to be on record.

 *19* HC, Cal Dinabandhu Banerjee Vs. Nandani 15-06-93 406 not a continuing of-fence. Limitation runs from date of first refusal of request of return of stridhan. Subsequent demands do not have effect on limitation.   

*20 SC Sarwan Singh Vs. State 02-04-81 Limitation of 406 barred by S.468 & 469 CrPC to subserve Article 21.   *21* HC, Delhi Chander Kanta Lamba Vs. State 21-12-09 No  ate, time or place in complaint, allegations too generic in nature, highly improbable to believe. Impression as if all accused demanded dowry at same time and subjected cruelty simultaneously.  

*22 HC, Jhar Birendra Jha Vs. State 11-07-01 Serious allegations with clear proof, physical injury necessary for 498A.         Court be circumspect & careful in assessing contents of police report, complaint, supporting proof, documents to check if allegations are genuine & serious, or complainant trying to harrass.   

*23 HC, Jhar Arjun Ram Vs. State 13-05-04 Case filed with malafide intention and ulterior motive due to grudge.   24 HC, Delhi Hans Raj Sharma Vs. State 02-03-10 Not every cruelty under 498A. Not every harassment under 498A. In order to attarct criminal liability, there should be physical or mental torture by positive acts. Courts need to carefully analyse the evidence so that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt.   

*25* Session, Delhi Davendra Kumar Vs. State 12-10-09 Vague & bald statement cannot be foundation for framing of charge. Concrete allegations with date, place, manner, act should be present in evidence. If two prima facie views, one supporting accused should be accepted before charge framing.   

*26 HC, AP Kamireddy Mangamma Vs. State 22-11-07 Allegations are not very specific and prima facie do not inspire confidence.   

*27 SC Sushil kumar Vs. Union of India 19-07-05 Complaint with obligue motive to wreck personal vendatta. If there is no direct evidence court should act on circumstantial evidence.   

*28 HC, Delhi Narendra Kumar Vs. State 01-11-07 Man may lie circumstances do not. Failed marriage no crime. Courts to be careful in considering creditbility & truthfulness of statement of complainant & relatives, carefully analyze the entire evidence.

 *29 SC Kans Raj Vs. State 26-04-00 Accusations, mere conjectures & implications required to be proved beyond doubt.  
*30* HC, Orissa Benumadhab Padhi Vs. State 28-08-03 Court cannot close eyes to facts that provisions are misused by unscrupulous litigants for personal revenge and harassment. Witnesses did not state facts to police when they were examined u/s 161 CrPC. It throws cloud of suspicion as to truthfulness of statements. Absolutely no evidence as to either demanding dowry, torture or harassment. Vague & inconsistent statements of interested witnesses. Cogent evidence of near relatives & neighbours required to sustain.   

*31 HC, Delhi Anu Gill Vs. State 30-05-01 406: Must be clear & specific allegation as to entrustment, misappropiration & refusal on demand. In absence of entrustment, latter do not arise. From allegations even strong suspicion cannot be inferred.

No comments:

Post a Comment