07 February, 2016

MACT Claim Petition u/s 163a - Claim Allowed - M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd versus P.Alagesan


Before:- Justice Mani Kumar
C.M.A.No.3711 of 2012 M.P.No.1 of 2012

M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,. ... Appellant
P.Alagesan ... Respondent

For Appellants : Mr.G.Udayasankar
Allahabad High Court Judgments

In the accident, which occurred on 29.09.2009, a 45 year old, owner-cum-driver of a lorry, sustained injuries. He was treated in various hospitals. He claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Read full Judgment »

07 February, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

04 February, 2016

Rape Case - Consent under fear or misconception is No consent


Before :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor and R. Basant, JJ.
Crl. A No. 590 of 2000(B). D/d. 20.1.2005.

Joseph @ Baby - Appellants
S.I. Of Police - Respondent

For the Appellants :- Mr. P.K. Ravisankar, Mr. C. Khalid, Mr. M. Gopinatha Panicker, Mr. P. Viswambharan, Mr. Thomas Mathew (Kottayam), Mr. C.C. Thomas, Mr. B. Raman Pillai, Mr. George Philip, Mr. R. Anil, Mr. Thomas Antony M., Mr. M.N. Sukumaran Nair (Senior), Mr. S. Vijayakumar, Mr. K.P. Dhandapani, Mr. M. Sajgad, Mr. Shaji Thomas Porkattil, Mr. Bichu Kurian Thomas, Mr. Vijayabhanu, Mr. K.C. Peter, Mr. T.A. Shaji, Mr. Dinesh Mathew Murickan, Mr. S. Gopakumaran Nair, Mr. K.A. Hassan, Mr. George Kutty Mathew, Mr. Kennath George, Mr. T.R. Ramachandra Nair, Mr. Dinesh Shenoy and Mr. V.P.K. Panicker, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, Special Public Prosecutor.
Kerala High Court, Ernakulam Judgments
Cases referred :

Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973 SCC (Cri.) 1048).
Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar, (JT 2004 (9) SC 469).
State of Maharashtra v. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658.
Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo v. State of Orissa, (2003 Crl.LJ 4920).
Gopi Shanker v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 Rajasthan 159.
Kuldeep K. Mahato v. State of Bihar, (1998) 6 SCC 420.
Jagannivasan v. State of Kerala, (1995 Supp (3) SCC 204).
Jinish Lal Sah v. State of Bihar,

Read full Judgment »

04 February, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

02 February, 2016

Kidnapping of Minor Girl - In the absence of any direct evidence of kidnapping, it cannot be ruled out that girl might have gone on her own with the appellant - Conviction set aside


Before :- Prashant Kumar, J. 
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 731 of 2002. D/d. 16.4.2010.

Rajesh Kumar and another - Appellant
State of Jharkhand - Respondents

For the Appellant :- K. N. Roy, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Judgments

Prashant Kumar, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.9.2002 and 20.9.2002 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge,

Read full Judgment »

02 February, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

31 January, 2016

FIR lodged in an offence, but police taking no action - Complainant can lay a complaint before Magistrate under Section 190 read with Section 200 CrPC - If Magistrate finds that complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused


Before :- Arijit Pasayat and Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 140 of 2006. D/d. 16.6.2006

Hari Singh - Petitioner
State of U.P. - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Parmanand Katara, Sr. Advocate, Manjeet Chawla, Kusum Lata Sharma, Albel Bhati, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India


Arijit Pasayat, J. - This petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') is for a direction to conduct enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the 'CBI') into the murder of one Yashvir Singh, son of the petitioner. The allegation is that though First Information

Read full Judgment »

31 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

29 January, 2016

Police not registering FIR - Magistrate has power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order Police to register FIR though such power is not expressly mention in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C


Before :- A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 1685 of 2007 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6404/2007). D/d. 7.12.2007.

Police not registering FIR - Magistrate has power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order Police to register FIR though such power is not expressly mention in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C

Criminal offence - Police not registering FIR - Magistrate has power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order Police to register FIR though such power is not expressly mention in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Criminal offence - Police not registering FIR - Petition under Section 482 - Petition not be entertained - Petitioner should be relegated to Magistrate - Magistrate has power to under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to direct Police to Register FIR.

Sakiri Vasu - Appellant
State of U.P. and others - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Garg, Advocate.

A. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 156 - Magistrate has very wide power under Section 156 -
(1) Magistrate has power to direct police to register FIR.
(2) Magistrate can monitor investigation.
(3) Magistrate can order reinvestigation and re-opening of investigation on submission of final report by Police if investigation not done satisfactorily.
(4) Magistrate, however, cannot direct C.B.I. to investigate. [Para 27]

B. Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 156(3) and 154 - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 173(8) - Criminal offence - Police registering the case, but not conducting proper investigation - Complainant can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Magistrate will ensure proper investigation - Held :-

(1) In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.
(2) Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report.
(3) Magistrate can monitor investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly. 2007(4) RCR(Crl.) 115 : 2007(5) RAJ 37 (SC) and AIR 1980 SC 326 relied. [Paras 13, 14, 15, 16 and 27]

C. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 156(3) - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 154 - Scope of power of Magistrate under Section 156(3) - Criminal complaint - Police not registering the case - Magistrate can order Police to register FIR in exercise of power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - Section 156(3) though briefly worded is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation - Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., They are implied in the above provision. [Paras 17, 18 and 24]

D. Doctrine of implied power - When any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective - Further held :-

(1) The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from legislation.
(2) An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. [Paras 18, 19, 20 and 21]

E. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 125 - Interim maintenance to wife - Power conferred on the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to the wife implies the power to grant interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceeding. 1986(1) RCR(Crl.) 83 (SC) relied.[Para 23]

F. Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Sections 5 and 6 - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 156(3) - Criminal offence - Prayer for investigation by C.B.I. - Held :-

No one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency - An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice. 1997 Cr.L.J. 63 relied. [Para 10]

G. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 36 - Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 154 and 156(3) - Criminal offence - Police not registering FIR - Held :-

First remedy of complainant is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. - If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. - Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies. 2006(1) RCR(Crl.) 450 : 2006(1) Apex Criminal 166 (SC), 2007(4) RCR(Crl.) 115 and 2007(5) RAJ 37 (SC) relied. 2003(3) RCR(Crl.) 556 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 325 (SC) distinguished. [Paras 11, 26 and 27]

G. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 173(8) - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 156(3) - Criminal offence - Final Report submitted by Police to Magistrate after investigation - Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report. AIR 1980 SC 326 relied. [Paras 16 and 17]

Cases referred :

CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi, 1997 Cr.L.J 63.
Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 450 : 2006(1) Apex Criminal 166 : JT 2006(1) SC 10
Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi, 2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 115 : 2007(5) RAJ 37 : JT 2007(10) SC 585.
State of Bihar v. A.C. Saldanna, AIR 1980 SC 326.
ITO, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi, AIR 1969 SC 430.
Union of India v. Paras Laminates, AIR 1991 SC 696.
Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 646.
Chief Executive Officer & Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board v. Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu, 1996(11) SCC 23.
J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1996 SC 3527.
State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharati House Building Co-op Society, 2003(2) SCC 412.
Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, 1986(1) RCR(Criminal) 83 : AIR 1986 SC 984.
Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja, 2003(3) RCR(Criminal) 556 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 325 : 2003(6) SCC 195.
CBI v. State of Rajasthan, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 574 : 2001(3) SCC 333.
R.P. Kapur v. S.P. Singh, AIR 1961 SC 1117.
Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, 2002(3) RCR(Criminal) 413 : 2002(2) SCT 1090 : 2002(5) SCC 521.

Read full Judgment »

29 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

28 January, 2016

Qualified Wife not entitled to Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC


Before :- J.B. Garg, J.
Criminal Misc. No. 1476-M of 1993. D/d. 20.7.1993

Capt. Dr. Hamesh Kumar - Petitioner
Dr. Nisha Sahi and another - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. M.L. Merchea, Advocate.
Update : In Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000
Justice J.G. Chitre, J. of Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that Section 24 has been enacted for the purpose of providing a monetary assistance to such spouse who is incapable of supporting himself Or herself inspite of sincere efforts made by him or herself. A spouse who is well qualified to get the service immediately with less efforts is not expected to remain idle to squeeze out, to milk out the other spouse by relieving him of his or her own purse by a cut in the nature of pendente lite alimony. The law does not expect the increasing number of such idle persons who by remaining in the arena of legal battles, try to squeeze out the adversory by implementing the provisions of law suitable to their purpose.
Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

J.B. Garg, J. - The present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been moved alleging that application moved under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, pending in the Court of Shri R.P. Nagrath, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, be quashed.

Read full Judgment »

28 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

25 January, 2016

Mere catching or holding a woman from her arm would not be mischief within the meaning of Section 354 of IPC


Before :- Kuldip Chand Sood, J.
Cr.M.P. (M) No. 1270 of 2003. D/d. 12.11.2003

State of H.P. - Appellant
Kewal Ram - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Addl. A.G.
Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Judgments

Kuldip Chand Sood, J. - This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal in appeal, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, dated 18.8.2003.
2. It appears, accused-respondent Kewal Ram was tried for an offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan and was convicted for the offence.

Read full Judgment »

25 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

23 January, 2016

Merely asking the wife to do house hold work or to work at their own field, cannot be termed as "Cruelty"


(Aurangabad Bench)
Before :- Shrihari P. Davare, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2001. D/d. 6.4.2011.

Limbraj Vishnu Dhakane - Appellant
State of Maharashtra - Respondent

For the Appellant :- S.P. Katneshwarkar, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- V.G. Shelke, A.P.P.
Bombay High Court Judgments

Shrihari P. Davare, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal, preferred by original accused Nos. 1 to 5, challenging the conviction and sentence inflicted upon them, by way of judgment and order dated 29.12.2000, rendered by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1999, thereby convicting them for offence punishable under Section 498A, read with Section 34,

Read full Judgment »

23 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 1

19 January, 2016

Wife not allowing her husband to have Sexual intercourse - It is Cruelty - Husband entitled to Divorce - Sex is foundation of Marriage


Before :- Kailash Gambhir, J.
F.A.O. No. 185 of 2001. D/d. 21.3.2012.

Smt. Shashi Bala - appellant.
Shri Rajiv Arora - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Mr. Atul Bandhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. R.G. Srivastava, Advocate.
Delhi High Court, Delhi Judgments

Kailash Gambhir, J. - By this appeal filed under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned order and decree dated 12.2.2001 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent husband under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act was granted and the counter claim filed by the appellant seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17.2.1991 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.

Read full Judgment »

19 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

17 January, 2016

Practicing Advocates can join LLM Courses as Regular Students without suspending the practice

Here's a Good News for the Advocates practicing in India. Earlier, the Advocates who used to be interested in joining LLM courses in the mid of practice had to get their license suspended for the time period of their study.

Bar Council of India (BCI) have passed a resolution dated 23.1.2010 at the counsel meeting held on 18th and 20th december 2009, where it was decided that the Practicing Advocates can join in LLM Courses as Regular Students without suspending the practice.
Practicing Advocates can join LLM Courses as Regular Students without suspending the practice

Read full Judgment »

17 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 4

16 January, 2016

Police Officers be punished on Acquittal of Accused : Supreme Court


Before:- Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Jagdish Singh Khehar
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1485 OF 2008 D/d : 7 January, 2014

State of Gujarat … Appellant
Kishanbhai Etc. … Respondents

Supreme Court of India Judgments

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. A complaint was lodged at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, alleging the kidnapping/abduction of a six year old girl child Gomi daughter of Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben on 27.2.2003 at around 6:00 p.m. by the accused Kishanbhai son of Velabhai Vanabhai Marwadi.

Read full Judgment »

16 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

15 January, 2016

Statement of complainant recorded under Section 202, Cr.P.C - Complainant died - Accused does not have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses - Said statement is inadmissible in evidence


Before :- Sheema Ali Khan, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1998. D/d. 24.3.2009.

Rajendra Thakur - Appellant
State of Bihar - Complainant

For the Appellant :- Rashid Izhar, Abdul Kalam, MD. Sarsuddin, Advocates.
For the Complainant :- Shashi Chandra Pandey, Advocate.
For the State :- Lala Kailash Bihari, Sr. Adv., and APR.
Patna High Court, Bihar Judgments

1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
2. The prosecution case as made out in the complaint case filed by Sanjivan Thakur is that one Rajendra Thakur alias Sharma came to his residence on 23.6.1991 at 11 a.m. and claimed that he was the son of the sister's husband (SARHU) of the complainant and asked the complainant's wife to accompany him to attend the marriage of his niece which was to be held on 23.6.1991 at village Bihta. The wife of the complainant carried with her gold and silver ornaments and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the purpose of attending the said wedding.

Read full Judgment »

15 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

©2011-2015 Geek Upd8. Some content is copyrighted to Puneet Batish and may not be reproduced on other websites.
Free Legal Advice on Phone