S.125 - Maintenance to wife - Cannot be refused merely on the ground that
husband not found guilty of offences under which he has been charge sheeted on FIR
lodged by wife. (Orissa) 112
S.125 - Maintenance to wife - Earlier application of wife for maintenance dismissed
- Subsequent application for maintenance is not maintainable as it tantamounts to review
of earlier order of rejection of application. (Rajasthan) 226
S.125 - Maintenance to wife - Mere fact that husband succeeded in proceeding
under Guardians and Wards Act, which is under challenge before this Court, is no
ground to negate maintenance to wife, as said proceeding is different in nature. (Orissa)
112
S.125 - Maintenance to wife - Wife lodged FIR against husband relating to
torture and on investigation, prima facie evidence found against him for which charge
sheet was submitted against him, which itself is a factor for wife to live separately from
husband and to claim maintenance - It cannot be said that there was not sufficient
reason for wife to refuse to reside with husband. (Orissa) 112
S.125(3), Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.67 - Maintenance - Default in payment -
Sentence of imprisonment - Sentence imposed u/s 125(3) Cr.P.C. is only a mode of
enforcement of direction to pay amount of maintenance and not as a punishment - Court
below therefore, seriously erred in invoking
S.67 IPC for handing down sentences of 6
months and 3 months respectively to petitioner - Impugned order of sentencing petitioner
set aside - Sentence reduced to one month only in both the cases. (Rajasthan) 217
S.125(4) - Maintenance to wife - Adultery - Husband has no personal knowledge
about involvement of wife in adultery, as he himself admitted that he came to know about
said fact from village gentries - Even mother of wife deposed about the same, but no
evidence on record to prove said fact - It cannot be said that husband has established in
any way that wife was living in adultery - Sufficient reason to live separately from
husband on the part of wife is proved - Taking into account salary of husband and necessity of wife to lead a decent and dignified life, wife entitled to Rs.8000 as maintenance.
(Orissa) 112
S.125(4) - Maintenance to wife - Adultery - Living in adultery denotes a continuous
course of conduct and not isolated acts of immorality - An act of isolated lapse would
not disentitle wife to claim maintenance - Onus is on husband to establish that wife is
living in adultery - Evidence which creates some sort of suspicion on conduct of wife is
not enough to establish that she is living in adultery. (Orissa) 112
S.125(4) - Maintenance to wife - Adultery - Unsuccessful attempt by husband in
levelling disgusting accusations of unchastity entitles wife to live separately from
husband and to claim maintenance from him. (Orissa) 112
S.125(4) - Maintenance to wife - Adultery - 'Sufficiency of reason' u/s 125(4)
Cr.P.C. is a question of fact - Every reason or pretext put forth on behalf of wife cannot be
accepted for fulfilling such requirement. (Orissa) 112
S.145 - Scope of inquiry u/s 145 Cr.P.C. - Question of right to possession is
foreign to scope of enquiry - Only question of actual possession has to be determined
and to be decided by Magistrate - Question of title should not be allowed to be agitated.
(Chhattisgarh) 025
S.145(4) Proviso - Restoration of possession - Magistrate obliged to record a
specific and clear cut finding in order to grant restoration of possession of property that
party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within 2 months on which report
of police officer or other information was received by Magistrate or atleast 2 months
prior to date of passing of preliminary order. (Chhattisgarh) 025
S.145(4) Proviso - Restoration of possession - Magistrate while passing order of
restoration of possession not recorded a finding that respondent was forcefully and
wrongfully dispossessed prior to 2 months from date of passing of preliminary order -
Such finding is sine qua non for passing order of restoration of possession u/s 145(6)(a)
of Cr.P.C. - Non-recording of said finding would amount to jurisdictional error - More so,
decision of Magistrate is influenced more by consideration of title and right of possession
than actual possession over properties in dispute - Order directing restoration of
possession not sustainable and set aside - Matter remitted. (Chhattisgarh) 025
Ss.145, 146 - Proceedings u/ss 145, 146 Cr.P.C. -
Ss.145, 146 Cr.P.C., together
constitute a scheme for resolution of a situation where there is a likelihood of breach of
peace because of dispute concerning any land or water or their boundaries.
(Chhattisgarh) 025
Ss.145(4) Proviso, 482 - Restoration of possession - Plea that no finding is
recorded by Magistrate that respondent dispossessed prior to 2 months from date of
passing of preliminary order - Such plea goes to root of matter - Even though such plea
never raised either before Magistrate or before Sessions Court, same can be raised
before High Court in a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Chhattisgarh) 025
Ss.156, 173(8) - Transfer of investigation to CBI - Illegal manufacture and sale of
Gutka and Pan Masala - Accused named in FIR, has no right to be heard at the stage of
investigation or to have an opportunity of hearing as a matter of course - Mere fact that
accused was not impleaded as a party in writ petition or for that matter was not heard,
will be of no avail - That per se cannot be basis to label direction issued to transfer of
investigation to CBI a nullity. (
S.C.) 102
Ss.156, 173(8) - Transfer of investigation to CBI - Illegal manufacture and sale of
Gutka and Pan Masala - Crime in question involving high ranking officials of State as
well as Central Government - For instilling confidence in the minds of victims as well as
public at large, High Court predicated that it was but necessary to entrust investigation
of crime to CBI - Earlier decision of Co-ordinate Bench of same High Court refusing to transfer investigation distinguished from present case, hence no question of disregarding
binding decision or precedent made out - Case rightly transferred for investigation to
CBI. (
S.C.) 102
Ss.156, 173(8) - Transfer of investigation to CBI - Illegal manufacture and sale of
Gutka and Pan Masala - High Court transferred investigation to CBI after due
consideration of all relevant aspects - Transfer of investigation to CBI does not depend
on inadequacy of inquiry/investigation carried out by State police - Since nature of
crime being investigated warrants CBI investigation, case rightly transferred for
investigation to CBI. (
S.C.) 102
Ss.156, 173(8) - Transfer of investigation to CBI - Petition filed by member of
legislative assembly as Public Interest Litigation - Cannot be brushed aside on the
allegation of political vendetta, if otherwise, it is genuine and raises a reasonable
apprehension of likelihood of bias in dispensation of criminal justice system. (
S.C.) 102
S.173 - Protest petition/private complaint - Once protest petition/private complaint
taken on record by taking Sworn Statements of PW1 to PW3, Magistrate should have
proceeded to consider matter on merits and disposed of same after examining witnesses
by issuing summons to accused - Magistrate, however, taken a route of
S.468 Cr.P.C and
ultimately dismissed the protest petition being barred in view of
S.468 Cr.P.C. - Extended
period of limitation u/s 473 Cr.P.C ought to be taken into account - Impugned order of
Magistrate dismissing protest petition set aside - Matter remitted. (Madras) 051
S.173(8) - Further investigation or re-investigation - De facto complainant has
not been put on notice of final report filed in the case on completion of investigation - He
thus, had a right to file a protest petition and seek further investigation - Mere technical
error of mentioning re-investigation in protest petition, cannot take away right of
complainant - Material records necessary for proving offence alleged in complaint not
gathered by investigating agency - Petition filed by de facto complainant for further
investigation or re-investigation directed to be considered as protest petition and consider
the same on merits in accordance with law. (Madras) 079
Ss.177, 178 - Territorial jurisdiction - Continuing offence - Sexual abuse upon
minor girl - When an offence is a continuing offence and is committed in more than one
local area, it may be tried by any of those Courts having territorial jurisdiction - Since the
first offence committed at place 'G' and thereafter at 'J', Courts at 'G' has territorial
jurisdiction to try the case. (P&H) 247
S.197 - Sanction for prosecution - Committing certain excesses during performance
of official duty - Sanction is necessary. (Orissa) 139
S.197 - Sanction for prosecution - When there is reasonable connection between
alleged act done and official duty, sanction from competent authority is necessary.
(Orissa) 139
Ss.211, 215 - Charge - Mere omission to mention provision of law - Does not
make the charge invalid, particularly when person is aware of offence that he/she is
being accused of. (P&H) 247
S.228 - Framing of charge - Court not to enter into a roving inquiry to appreciate
or weigh material on record at the stage of framing of charge - Strong suspicion is
enough for Court to form a presumptive opinion as to existence of an event having taken
place, justifying framing of charge. (P&H) 247
S.228 - Framing of charge - No meticulous examination of evidence is needed for
considering whether case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of
charge. (P&H) 247
S.228, Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Ss.307, 149, 323, 325 - Framing of charge u/ss
307, 149 IPC - Accused allegedly 8 in number, armed with lathis, named in FIR - But small number of injuries received by injured belies said allegation - Moreover, if accused were
intending to kill injured, nothing prevented them from aiming the lathis on his head -
Intention of accused thus, was nothing beyond chasing injured and did not extend to
making an attempt on his life - Framing of charges u/ss 307, 149 IPC, improper and set
aside. (Rajasthan) 144
S.228, Indian Penal Code, 1860,
S.307 - Charge u/s 307 IPC - Determining factor
to frame charge u/s 307 IPC is not the nature of injuries suffered but intent and knowledge
of accused persons while indulging in assault. (Rajasthan) 144
Ss.228, 161 - Framing of charges - At the time of framing of charges statements
of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and all other material collected during investigation has to
be taken on its face value - Defence of accused and documents produced by accused
not to be considered. (Delhi) 168
Ss.397(2), 482 - Second revision petition - Barred u/s 397(2) Cr.P.C. - Petition u/
s 482 Cr.P.C can be entertained only in exceptional and rare cases only if High Court is
satisfied that continuation of trial would result in gross abuse of process of law thereby
resulting in miscarriage of justice. (Delhi) 168
S.438, Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Ss.366, 376, 506 - Anticipatory bail - Kidnapping
and rape - FIR filed as counter blast to complaint made by petitioner against some police
officials - There was dispute between petitioner and complainant with regard to dishonour
of certain cheques to which petitioner filed complaint u/s 138 of N.I Act against
complainant - Petitioner was assaulted by husband of complainant and police officials
were threatening petitioner to withdraw complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act - Subject FIR
alleged to be made on behalf of complainant but actually no such complaint has been
lodged by complainant - Without commenting merits of case, petitioner has made out a
case for grant of anticipatory bail - Application allowed. (Delhi) 014
S.439 - Bail - Gravity of offence - Not a decisive ground to deny bail - Competing
factors are required to be balanced by Court while exercising its discretion. (H.P.) 148
S.439 - Cancellation of bail - Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless a
cogent case, based on a supervening event is made out. (
S.C.) 001
S.439, Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Ss.298, 323, 324, 341, 307, 302, 34 - Bail -
Offence u/ss 298, 323, 324, 341, 307, 302, 34 IPC - Incident occurred over issue of seats
sharing etc. in train and there is neither any evidence of any preplanning to cause
incident deliberately or intentionally to cause communal disharmony - There is not even
remote whisper that petitioner had instigated or asked anybody to make assault - Petitioner
has made out a prima facie case based on evidence that was collected by police for his
release on bail, particularly because, he does not have any criminal antecedents - He is
also entitled to bail on ground of parity with other co-accused who is already granted
bail - Bail granted to petitioner with conditions. (P&H) 262
Ss.439, 438 - Anticipatory bail - Interim order granting pre-arrest bail - Accused
thereafter surrendered before trial Court and regular bail was granted - Held, when
Supreme Court or High Court or Sessions Judge grants interim anticipatory bail and the
matter is pending before that Court, there can be no occasion for the accused to appear
and surrender before trial Court and seek regular bail - Surrender and bail application in
such circumstances is nothing but an abuse of the process of law by the concerned
accused. (
S.C.) 195
Ss.468, 473, 173 - Bar u/s 468 Cr.P.C. - Belated protest petition/private complaint
- No notice admittedly sent to de facto complainant, at the time of referring matter by
sending referring report to Magistrate - Only on insistence of de facto complainant that
too pursuant to direction given by this Court, such a notice has been given to de facto
complainant - De facto complainant, therefore, cannot be blamed for approaching Court
by filing private complaint belatedly - Provision u/s 473 Cr.P.C ought to have been followed - Order dismissing protest petition/private complaint set aside. (Madras) 051
S.482 - Quashing of proceedings - Exoneration in departmental enquiry of same
subject matter - Does not automatically lead to acquittal in a criminal trial or even quashing
of criminal proceedings. (P&H) 058