section 482 crpc

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Manoj K. Tiwari, J. disposed of a compounding application in favour of the parties as they had amicably settled the dispute by entering into a compromise.

In the pertinent case, an FIR was lodged by the respondents under Sections 420 and 468 IPC on 05-01-2019. Later a compounding application duly supported by affidavits was filed stating that they have buried their differences and settled the dispute amicably outside the Court by entering into a compromise, therefore, no useful purpose would be served if the same is continued. They further relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 118 which has considered the question with regard to the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC in quashing the criminal proceedings. Moreover, it was contended that the offence involved in the case is of a personal nature and is not an offence against the society and is not heinous offence showing extreme depravity.

The Court opined that “the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice, which would tantamount to abuse of process of law.”And thereby, allowed the application. [Shiv Shankar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 91, Order dated 15-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Manoj K. Tiwari, J. allowed a criminal miscellaneous application challenging the proceedings of the criminal case on the ground that the parties had settled the dispute between themselves.

The counsels for the parties submitted that parties had buried their differences and entered into a compromise and settled the dispute amicably outside the court, therefore, no useful purpose would have been served if the criminal case was to be continued.

The Court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 118 which had considered the question with regard to the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC in quashing the criminal proceedings against the offender, who had settled his dispute with the victim of the crime in a case, where crime is not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. The Court held that in view of the settlement arrived at between the complainant and the applicants and the possibility of a conviction being remote and bleak, the FIR shall be quashed. [Abdul Rahman v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 87, Order dated 18-02-2019]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: S. Talapatra, J., relying on the Supreme Court decision in Azghar Khan v. State of U.P., 1981 Supp SCC 78, dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge.

Genesis of the grievance was noted in a complaint filed by petitioner alleging that respondent stole the cheque in controversy which was dishonoured in due course. A case was registered and after investigation, the police submitted the report of terminating the investigation as there was no foundation for allegations made in the complaint. Petitioner challenged the report by filing a protest petition but Sub-Divisional Magistrate refused to direct further investigation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge observing that there was no ground to interfere in the report. This order was challenged in the present revision petition under Section 482 CrPC.

At the outset, the High Court observed, “By all traits, this is a second revision petition. On the face of it, it is barred by sub-section (3) of Section 397 CrPC.” Reliance was placed on Azghar Khan case which laid down that a second revision petition would not be competent in view of Section 397(3). Moreover, the High Court did not find any failure of justice which could persuade it to interfere in the matter. [Bikash Chandra v. State of Tripura, 2019 SCC OnLine Tri 40, dated 01-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: R.K. Gauba, J. allowed a petition filed against the order of Sessions Court whereby proceedings in a case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were stayed.

Petitioner had filed a case against respondents alleging commission of an offence under Section 138. It was alleged that he had advanced a loan to the respondents, for the repayment of which, the respondents had issued a cheque in his favour drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. However, on presenting the cheque, it was returned unpaid with remarks “payment stopped by drawer.” After a preliminary enquiry, Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to respondents. Thereafter the respondents reached the Sessions Court which granted a stay on summons order till final decision in another case arising out of an FIR filed by respondents against the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.

The High Court noted that in the FIR filed, respondents alleged that the cheque in question was stolen and misappropriated by the petitioner. It was also noted that revisional court stayed the proceedings under Section 138 on the ground that the same would unnecessarily prejudice the trial in the case arising out of the FIR. The High Court held this to be totally unjust and unfair. It was stated “Though questions would arise in the criminal case under Section 138 NI Act as to whether cheque in question had come in the hands of the petitioner legitimately or not, the contentions of the respondents are a matter of defence which will have to be raised by them, the burden of proof of the requisite facts in such regard being placed on them. There is no reason why the case arising out of above-mentioned FIR should have primacy or priority over the case of the petitioner against the opposite party.” The petition was thus allowed and the impugned stay order was allowed. [Mukesh Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6843, decided on 28-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a husband’s petition filed against the order of Metropolitan Magistrate as confirmed by Additional Sessions Judge whereby he was directed to pay interim maintenance allowance of Rs 3500 to his wife and Rs 2000 for his minor daughter.

The parties were married to each other and a daughter was born to them from the wedlock. On account of certain circumstances, the wife left the matrimonial home along with the daughter. Subsequently, she filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women and Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On her application, the Metropolitan Magistrate directed the husband to pay the interim maintenance allowance as mentioned above. The husband challenged the order in an appeal which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.

S.C. Singhal, Advocate for the husband submitted that he was unemployed and therefore unable to pay the allowance. It was also submitted that the wife was gainfully employed in a beauty parlour for the proof of which certain photographs were produced.

The High Court held that mere photographs showing the wife’s presence in a parlour were not sufficient to prove that she had a regular income sufficient to maintain herself and the minor daughter, Furthermore, the husband made a cursory statement that he was unemployed, but did not disclose as to how he had been surviving all along. The Court was of the view that he was concealing facts and intentionally withholding information about his income. In such a situation, the Court approved the course adopted by Metropolitan Magistrate as per which he assumed husband’s income notionally on the basis of minimum wages and passed the order of interim maintenance. Resultantly the petition was dismissed. [Khem Chand v. Bhagwati, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6776, Order dated 22-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC holding it to be an abuse of process of law.

Petitioner was accused for committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (dishonour of cheque). It was alleged that he had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs 12 lakhs in favour of the complainant for discharging the debt due to him. The said cheque got dishonoured. Therefore, complainant initiated the process under Section 138. The trial court summoned the petitioner as an accused. He assailed the summoning order in the present petition on the ground that the debt had become time-barred and thus the cheque represented an amount which was not legally recoverable.

The High Court observed that the petition at best-raised questions of fact which could be answered only at proper inquiry or trial. Such questions were not permitted to be raised in jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Furthermore, the Court held that filing of the petition was itself an abuse of the process of law. It was observed, “issuance of cheque gives rise to a presumption of the amount being due and consequently an acknowledgment rendering the plea of debt being time-barred inconsequential. It will be for the petitioner to show at trial that the amount was not due or that the cheque had not been issued to the complainant.” Therefore, the petition was dismissed and the costs of Rs 25,000 was imposed on petitioner. [Tarun Samdarshi v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6711, Order dated 16-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of Sunil Gaur, J. refused to invoke the inherent extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

Petitioners, represented by Akshay Bhatia and Avinash Das Advocates, had prayed for quashing of complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for dishonour of cheque). The quashing was sought on merits.

N.K. Aggarwal and Priya Pachouri, Advocates appeared for the respondents. It was informed to the Court that notice under Section 251 CrPC had been already framed and petitioners had also given their defence.

Since petitioners had an efficacious remedy to assail the notice framed under Section 251, the High Court refrained from invoking its inherent extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482. The petitioners were given liberty to assail the notice before the Revisional Court within a period of four weeks. The petition was disposed of accordingly without commenting on merits. [Anand and Associates v. Jugal Kishore Jain, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6708, Order dated 15-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of trial court’s order whereby prayer made by the petitioner regarding the release of a vehicle was dismissed.

In the instant case, OP-3 had filed a complaint alleging that opposite party 2 (OP-2) had taken a Scorpio vehicle belonging to him on the pretext of marriage in family assuring that he would return it. The vehicle was not returned and OP-3 was told by OP-2 that it had been stolen. OP-3 was assured that the vehicle would be located or OP-2 would pay him money for the same. On enquiring, OP-3 found that the vehicle had been allegedly sold to the petitioner and was with him. The vehicle was seized by the police pursuant to the lodging of FIR by OP-3.

The Court noted that the purported agreement of sale of vehicle relied upon by the petitioner was not even duly registered. Further, the certificate of registration for the vehicle was still in the name of opposite party 3.

It was held that the only document to prove ownership of a vehicle is a certificate issued by the transport department, i.e., the certificate of registration. Till such time the name of any other person is not duly entered in the official records and reflected in the certificate of registration with regard to the vehicle, vehicle could not be released in favour of a person who comes before with an unregistered agreement for sale of vehicle. [Md. Abdullah v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 51, Order dated 17-01 2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Bench of Sonia Gokani, J., allowed a petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered with Mahila Police Station under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the ground that the parties had settled all their disputes.

The facts of the case are that the respondent had been residing along with her husband-petitioner for last about four months and due to the intervention of the family members and friends and also for the better future of their child they chose to bury all their disputes.

The Court placed reliance on the case of Gian Singh v. State Of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and held that in view of the nature of disputes being matrimonial and when the parties had voluntarily chosen to end all their grievances by mutual understanding, the Court should show indulgence and invoke the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bringing lasting peace between the parties. The application was thus allowed. [Namoribhai Mudjibhai Maheshwari v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 25, decided on 10-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J. allowed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC.

In the present petition, the facts of the case are stated as, the petitioner is a mathematics teacher of the daughter of respondent 3 a class II student. It has been stated that while learning addition and subtraction, child committed a minor mistake for which the petitioner is alleged to have jabbed on her shoulders with his fist.

For the above-stated act child was taken to the hospital and the father of the child lodged the FIR statement leading to the registration of the crime. After the investigation, final report was laid under Section 323 IPC and Section 23 of JJ Act, 2000.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations, even if admitted as true in its entirety, would not make out an offence against the petitioner. As petitioner was in the process of teaching the child the nuances of mathematics and in order to keep her alert had only jabbed on her shoulders. The act committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be an act motivated by malice.

It was noted that, “the applicant herein is a school teacher and the victim is his student. Parents, teachers and other persons in loco parentis are entitled as a disciplinary measure to apply a reasonable degree of force to their children or pupil old enough to understand the purpose to which the act was done.”

Thus the Bench stated that the act of the petitioner cannot be said to have been preceded with malice and the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and has been instituted merely for harassing the petitioner. Quoting the Apex Court, summoning the accused to the criminal court is a serious matter and a court proceeding cannot be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution.

Therefore, “Nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests is so brittle that this Court will be justified in quashing the proceeding to prevent abuse of process of the Court.” [Rajan v. State, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 5774, Order dated 07-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of R.K. Gauba, J. allowed a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against in light of the settlement between the parties.

Disputes arose between the petitioner and his wife which led to FIRs being lodged against each other. Subsequently, the parties entered into a settlement. They approached the matrimonial court for divorce by mutual consent. Recording the joint statement by the parties, the matrimonial court decreed the divorce by mutual consent. On the basis of the resolution between the parties, the petitioner and his relatives approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal cases against them. However, owing to such framing of the petition, the case under one of the FIRs only was quashed. Notably, the wife submitted no objection thereto. Now, the petitioner was before the Court praying the quashing of the case under the second FIR but the wife raised an objection that there being no fresh settlement, the present petition could not be entertained.

The High Court perused the record and did not agree with the objection. It noted that the settlement leading to divorce and quashing of criminal case was comprehensive, the parties specifically referred to all litigations including the second FIR. The intent of parties was to bring an end to all litigations. As such, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, the petition was allowed and the proceedings under the second FIR were quashed. [Sandeep Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13029, dated 11-12-2018]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: This Criminal Case was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J., by petitioner under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the charge sheet pending before the JMFC and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge under Section 3 and 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Vanopaj Abhivahan Niyam 2000, Section 26 (1)(6) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and under Section 52/1 of the Kasht Chiran Adhiniyam, 1984.

Facts of the matter were that 14 doorposts made up of teak wood was found and seized by the Forest officials from the under-construction house of petitioner. For the above illegal activity, complaint was filed against petitioner. Petitioner had submitted that the teak wood doorpost was not illegal and showed the relevant document. The competency of the Range Officer was in question who had submitted the complaint against the petitioners. Revision court found that range officer was competent to file a complaint against petitioner under Section 76(d) of the Indian Forest Act.

High Court agreed with revision court that range officer was competent to file a complaint against petitioner. In addition to that in light of case of Krishnan v. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 214 Court also observed that this petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is in the nature of second revision, therefore, not a proper case in which inherent power could be invoked under Section 482 CrPC. Therefore, this petition was dismissed. [Ramgopal v. State of M.P.,2018 SCC OnLine MP 924, order dated 14-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing of lower court’s order whereby a prima facie case under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out against petitioner.

In the present case, respondent 2 had on petitioner’s persuasion, he invested in a company named Panjon Finance and an agreement was executed between the parties where it was stipulated that shares would mature after four years when repayment would be made to the respondent by the company. It is alleged that upon expiry of the term, despite several reminders and request to pay back the amount as per terms of the agreement, the same was not done leading to filing of a complaint under IPC. 

Learned counsels for the petitioner Mr Ajay Kumar Thakur, Mr Nilesh Kumar, Mr Pravin Kumar and Mr Udbhav submitted that the petitioner was merely an employee of the company and since he had only signed as a witness on the agreement, he could not be made criminally liable for non-performance of terms of the agreement. The dispute was purely a money dispute which could be resolved through civil law.

The Court opined that petitioner, in the capacity of the company’s local manager company, persuaded the respondent for investment.  Respondent 2 had relied on him and his trust was belied by the petitioner. As such, a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. Relying on the dictum in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 it was held that there was no infirmity in lower court’s order and the petition was dismissed.[Dharmendra Kumar v. State of Bihar,2018 SCC OnLine Pat 2218, decided on 13-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J. invoked its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quashed criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in view of resolution of dispute between the warring parties.

The petitioners herein were accused of committing offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since the disputes between parties to the case had been amicably resolved, the instant petition was filed praying for quashing of proceedings pending against petitioners. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the dispute was purely personal in nature and would not affect public peace or tranquility; and the respondents stated that they had no subsisting grievance.

The Court took note of Apex Court’s rulings in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466 where it had been laid down that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings.

It was observed that the offence committed by petitioners was not grave or serious having ingredients of extreme mental depravity. It appeared that the offence would not have a serious impact on society. Persisting with the prosecution would be nothing but a waste of time as the prospects of conviction were bleak; while on the other hand quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and secure the ends of justice. In view thereof, the petition was allowed.[Narayanan Nair v. Station House Officer, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 5067, Order dated 28-11-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of Uday U. Lalit and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court whereby it had quashed criminal proceedings instituted against the respondent.

According to the FIR for offence under Section 306 IPC, the daughter and son-in-law of the appellant were teachers in a village Zila Parishad School where the respondent was also a teacher. He used to call appellant’s daughter on mobile and harass her. Despite efforts of his son-in-law, the respondent continued to call and harass the appellant’s daughter. There was a verbal altercation between his son-in-law and the respondent after which the son-in-law committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note naming the respondent. The respondent approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR. Observing that prima facie the respondent did not have the intention to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide, the High Court quashed the FIR. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred the present appeal by special leave.

The Supreme Court noted that there were definite allegations against the respondent which were supported by statement of witnesses as well as the suicide note written by the deceased. The Court was of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in entering into question whether the respondent had requisite intent to aid, instigate or abate the commission of suicide at the stage where the investigation was yet to be completed. The Court found merit in submissions of the appellant and set aside the judgment impugned. The appeal was allowed and the authorities concerned were directed to complete the investigation.[Narayan Malhari Thorat v. Vinayak Deorao Bhagat,2018 SCC OnLine SC 2571, decided on 28-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of K.S Mudagal, J. slammed a daughter-in-law for filing a false case of dowry against her mother-in-law and quashed the FIR registered against petitioner mother-in-law.

The instant criminal writ petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (CrPC) praying for quashing of FIR and chargesheet filed against the petitioner and her son by her daughter-in-law (complainant) for offences allegedly committed by them under Sections 498 A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The petitioner was not even residing with her son and complainant daughter-in-law and so she could not have harassed the complainant. Complainant had merely stated that cash and gold was given at the time of her marriage – the same did not mean that it was given at petitioner’s behest. The Court also took note of the forum chosen by the complainant remarking that while the petitioner resided in a remote area of Andhra Pradesh, the case was filed against her in Davanagere Women Police Station. 

In view of the above and placing reliance on the dictum of Apex Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Court observed that proceedings against the petitioner was nothing but abuse of process of the court and continuance of the same would amount to failure of ends of justice. Therefore, the petition was allowed and proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.[Puttalakshmi v. State of Karnataka,2018 SCC OnLine Kar 1820, decided on 09-11-2018] 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court whereby it had dismissed appellant’s writ petition seeking to quash the FIR filed against them.

The case arose out of a property matter between the appellants and the complainant. The parties had entered into an agreement for the development of appellants’ property. However, the said agreement could not be performed due to the statutory ban on new construction in the area. It was the complainant’s case that the appellant was not returning a deposit of Rs 1 crore made at the time of entering into the agreement. Therefore, an FIR under Section 406 IPC was lodged against the appellants. The appellants’ filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking to quash the said FIR; however, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the appellants preferred the instant appeal. The complainant opposed the appeal on the ground that the chargesheet had already been filed in the case and therefore the FIR could not be quashed at this belated stage.

The Supreme Court turned down the said contention of the complainant while referring to High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC. After referring to Joseph Salvaraj A v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59, the Court observed that “there is nothing in the words of Section 482 which restricts the exercise of the Court’s power to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. The power is undoubtedly conferred to prevent abuse of process of any court.” Furthermore, on the facts of the case, the Court held that the money deposited with the appellant could not be said to be an entrustment. In any case, if there was a misappropriation, the remedy was available in a civil court. In the opinion of the Court, the FIR filed under Section 406 IPC was not tenable and therefore it was quashed. The appeal was thus allowed and the judgment impugned was set aside. [Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi),2018 SCC OnLine SC 2447, decided on 15-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: An application was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J., under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside of FIR filed under Sections 323, 294, 384, 506, 354, 342 and 355 read with Section 34 IPC.

The present matter occurred as a consequence of a fortress checking programme organized by Railway Board initiated in order to stop the passengers traveling without ticket. During the drive, few people were found ticketless which they justified by stating that they always travel without ticket and they were going to attend a rally organized by Bhartiya Kisan Union in Uchehehra. They were charged with fine in addition to the ticket amount. Later, FIR was filed against the railway checking staff and police alleging them of offences under the above-mentioned provisions.

Petitioner submitted that complaint filed was with malafide intention and false allegation were made suggested by the fact that necessary ingredients for the offences were not found. High Court after perusing the submission made by the parties observed that the petitioner were performing their duty under the fortress checking the drive and had no enmity with the passengers caught without the ticket. In view of the fact that a number of ticket checkers and RPF force were deployed it was found that the petitioner i.e. Chief Ticket Inspector had no necessity to have involved personally. In addition to the above due process was followed by the petitioner by charging the ticketless passengers with fine.

High Court referred to the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 where guidelines to be exercised during process of Section 482 CrPC was provided and observed that the allegations made under FIR were prima facie absurd and improbable. Therefore, writ petition was allowed and the impugned FIR filed against the petitioner was quashed. [Prabhat Kumar Hazare v. State of M.P.,2018 SCC OnLine MP 814, Order dated 02-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of R.K. Gauba, JJ. dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner-husband invoking inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to assail the order of the first appellate court.

The facts of the matter were that the respondent-wife had filed a case against the husband and his parents under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He sought various reliefs including protection orders under Section 18 and an order as to right to residence under Section 19 besides other monetary reliefs. As to the residential house which was in question, the husband challenged the claim of the wife on the ground that the said residential house was his father’s property. On the issue of the wife’s interest in the said property, the Magistrate accepted husband’s submission. The wife, thereafter, moved an application under Section 91 CrPC before the Magistrate asserting that the husband made false representations. She prayed for the summoning of certain relevant documents that would show that the said property was transferred in a clandestine manner only to defeat her rights. Pursuant thereto, the husband was directed to file an affidavit disclosing his bank account details along with account statements. The husband approached the Sessions Court against the order of the Magistrate on the contention that the Magistrate had found against the wife on the issue of her interest in the said property. However, his appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition was filed.

The High Court, on consideration of facts, noted that any interim order was denied to the wife by the Magistrate as well as the first appellate court. It was observed that the wife having been denied any interim order could not be deprived of the right to prove her case by leading evidence so as to demolish and discredit the defence set up vis-a-vis the said property. It was her contention that the property was acquired by the husband availing of his own resources, though in the name of the father and, therefore, benami. It was her burden to prove her contention in such regard. In such circumstances, the Court held that her right to bring requisite evidence, by having the necessary records summoned with the assistance of the court, could not be taken away. The High Court found no error in the reasoning of the Session Court which held that order of the Magistrate was purely a procedural order which did not decide or determine the rights or liabilities of the parties. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the husband was dismissed. [Dinesh Kumar v. Ruchi Ahuja,2018 SCC OnLine Del 11973, decided on 03-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioners under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The respondents had invoked the provision contained in Section 12 of the Act against one Lalit Mohan Joshi, husband of Respondent 1, since deceased. The provision was also invoked against family members (present petitioners) of the husband. The petitioners approached the Court seeking quashing of the said proceedings on the grounds, inter alia, that they were senior citizens, the allegations against them were small and bald, no case of domestic violence was properly brought out, intention of the respondent was to cause harassment and to gain wrongful possession of their property.

The High Court, at the outset, observed that to say the least, the petition was wholly misconceived. Questions of facts cannot ordinarily, and in absence of evidence of unimpeachable character to the contrary, be properly inquired into or adjudicated upon in jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Reference in this connection was made to Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330. Furthermore, it was observed that the fact of death of the husband cannot result in the criminal proceedings coming to an end. After all, allegations were also made against the petitioners who were related to the respondents by marriage or birth. The Court held that the claim of the respondents for compensation for the injuries suffered as a result of alleged acts of domestic violence could not be brushed aside; it would need to inquired into and adjudicated upon in accordance with law. The petition was, thus, dismissed. [Vijay Laxmi v. Madhu Joshi, Crl. MC No. 4352 of 2015, dated 06-09-2018]