07 February, 2016
MADRAS HIGH COURTBefore:- Justice Mani Kumar
C.M.A.No.3711 of 2012 M.P.No.1 of 2012
M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,. ... Appellant
For Appellants : Mr.G.Udayasankar
P.Alagesan ... Respondent
07 February, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0
04 February, 2016
KERALA HIGH COURT (DB)
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.
Joseph @ Baby - Appellants
S.I. Of Police - Respondent
For the Respondents :- Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, Special Public Prosecutor.
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,
04 February, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0
02 February, 2016
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
For the Appellant :- K. N. Roy, Advocate.
Rajesh Kumar and another - Appellant
State of Jharkhand - Respondents
For the Respondent :- Tapas Roy, A.P.P.
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
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
For the Appellant :- Parmanand Katara, Sr. Advocate, Manjeet Chawla, Kusum Lata Sharma, Albel Bhati, Advocates.
Hari Singh - Petitioner
State of U.P. - Respondent
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
31 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0
29 January, 2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1685 of 2007 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6404/2007). D/d. 7.12.2007.
For the Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Garg, Advocate.
Sakiri Vasu - Appellant
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
A. Criminal Procedure Code, Section
(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
(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
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
F. Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Sections
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
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
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.
29 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0
28 January, 2016
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate.
Capt. Dr. Hamesh Kumar - Petitioner
Dr. Nisha Sahi and another - Respondents
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.
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.
28 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0
25 January, 2016
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Addl. A.G.
State of H.P. - Appellant
Kewal Ram - Respondent
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.
25 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0
23 January, 2016
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
For the Appellant :- S.P. Katneshwarkar, Advocate.
Limbraj Vishnu Dhakane - Appellant
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
For the Respondent :- V.G. Shelke, A.P.P.
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,
23 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 1
19 January, 2016
DELHI HIGH COURT
For the Appellant :- Mr. Atul Bandhu, Advocate.
Smt. Shashi Bala - appellant.
Shri Rajiv Arora - Respondents
For the Respondent :- Mr. R.G. Srivastava, Advocate.
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.
19 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0
17 January, 2016
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|
17 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 4
16 January, 2016
SUPREME COURT OF INDIABefore:- Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Jagdish Singh Khehar
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1485 OF 2008 D/d : 7 January, 2014
State of Gujarat … Appellant
Kishanbhai Etc. … Respondents
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.
16 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0
15 January, 2016
PATNA HIGH COURT
For the Appellant :- Rashid Izhar, Abdul Kalam, MD. Sarsuddin, Advocates.
Rajendra Thakur - Appellant
State of Bihar - Complainant
For the Complainant :- Shashi Chandra Pandey, Advocate.
For the State :- Lala Kailash Bihari, Sr. Adv., and APR.
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.
15 January, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0