COURT CASE NO BETWEEN ACT SECTION

Crl.App.No:
1660 of HARI SINGH Vs STATE OF
SC 2010 MADYA PRADESH IEA

Cvil App
15549 of PANKAJBHAI Vs
SC 2017 JETHABAHI CPC OR22 R4
2005(5) SCC
SC 458 K.S.BHOOPATHY Vs.KOKILA CPC OR23 R1(3)
LAVAGHANBHAI
2018(4)SCC DEVJIBHAI Vs. STATE OF
SC 329 GUJARAT IPC 302, 304
OR9
R13,OR43
2005(1)SCC BHANU KUMAR R1,SS96(2)
SC 787 Vs.ARCHANA KUMAR CPC &11

2007 SAVITRI Vs.KARTHAYAYANI

SC AIR(SC)300 AMMA HAS 1925 63

2011(14)SC RAM MEHAR SINGH Vs.

SC C732 STATE(NCT OF DELHI) Cr.P.C 107,151
2017(4)
GAUHATI
LAW
GAUHATI REPORTER
HC 260 JILIMONI Vs.PRANAB DAS HMA 1955 13(1)(i-a)

2014(2)SCC GHANSHYAM Vs. STATE OF

SC 683 RAJASTAN IPC 405
2006 AIR INDIAN OIL CORP Vs.NEPC
SC (SC) 663 INDIA LTD
2014 (10) BINOD KUMAR VS. STATE
SC SCC 663 OF BIHAR
2008 AIR
(SC) INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI
281(FULL Vs.STATE OF
SC BENCH) UTTARANCHAL
2008 (2) ONKAR NATH MISHRA
SC SCC 561 Vs.STATE(NCT OF DELHI)
2001 AIR S.W.PALANTIKAR Vs.STATE
SC (SC) 2960 OF BIHAR
 2006 AIR STATE OF H.P Vs.
SC (SC) 2211 KARANVIR
2017(2)Cal.L
.T.102,C.R.R
CALCUTT 3157 OF
A HC 2014 PRITI Vs.PROMOD DVC 12(1)

2015(14)SC
SC C 784 H.L.REDDY Vs.L.V.REDDY HSA 1956 15

HMA 1955,
TRF PET NO: FAMILY
1278 OF SANTHINI Vs.VIJAYA COURTS HMA-S.22
SC (FB) 20167 VENKATESH ACT 1984 FMC-S.11
CIV APP
11158 OF
SC 2017 AMARDEEP Vs.HARVEEN HMA 1955 13 B(2)

SC 2014 Cri.L.J VIJAY Vs.NAJIMA Cr.P.C 200, 202

2006 AIR MOHD.YUSUF

SC (SC) 705 Vs.Smt.AFAQ JAHAN CRPC

ALLAHAB 2011 CrLJ FATHER THOMAS Vs.

AD HC 2278 STATE OF U.P CRPC 156(3)

Crl.App.No:
1399 of PRATIMA DEVI Vs. ANAND
SC 2019 PRAKASH CRPC 125
WRIT PET
145 OF RISHI MALHOTRA
SC 2017 Vs.UNION OF INDIA CRPC 354(5)

2011(3) SCC SAMITTRI DEVI

SC 556 Vs.SAMPURAN SINGH IEA 1872 114
Civil App HMA 1955
No.7186 of CONSTITUTI 13(1)(i)(a),
SC 2016 SUKHENDU Vs.RITA ON ART 142
 2009(9) SCC
SC (FB) 772 CPC OR20 R12

2017 AIR VKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE

SC (SC) 3227 OF PUNJAB IEA 1872 65B & 7

2009 CrLJ SANJU@RAMU Vs.STATE

SC 4123 OF UP NDPSA1985

2014(12)SC ANJANI KUMAR Vs.STATE

SC C 286 OF BIHAR IPC 307
CRPC
154,156(3),1
62,IPC
147,148,149
2004(13) UPKAR SINGH Vs. VED ,307,452,50
SC SCC 292 PRAKSAH CRPC,IPC 6

2012(11)SC
SC C 465 NUPUR TALWAR Vs.CBI CRPC 204 & 397

Crl App
1305 OF BILAL HAJAR VS.STATE THR
SC 2018 POLICE IPC 120B

2016 CrLJ STATE OF HARYANA

SC 4666 Vs.RAM MEHAR CRPC 311

PROF.CHINTAMANI
2018 CrLJ VS.HIGH COURT OF 340,
SC 3391 MADHYAPRADESH CRPC 195(1)(b)(i)
 IEA 2(2),65B
KERALA Crl MC 4148 JISAL RASAK Vs.STATE OF IEA 1872 ITA ITA 2(o)
HC OF 2019 KERALA 2000 2(t),4
SEBASRIANI LAKRA &ORS
Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE
SC CO.LTD MVACT

2017 (3) R.VENKATESWRLU

SC A.R.C 7 Vs.M.V.SUBBAIAH CPC 151
211,498A,
2012 AIR ABDUL REHMAN 195(1)(b)(i)
SC (Crl) 33 Vs.K.M.ANEES IPC, Cr.PC R/W 340

2012(7) SCC A.NAWAB JOHN

SC 738 Vs.V.V.N.SUBRAHMANIAM CPC 149

Crl Writ Pet.

BOMBAY 1778 OF
HC 2017 SHRI ANIL Vs. PUSHPABAI CRPC 125, 125(3)

KERALA 2017(3) KLT ABULASEES

HC 519 Vs.ABUMANAF MVACT 166
 Mat.App
KERALA No. 214 OF P.U.MOHAMMAD MOHAMMA
HC 2006 BASHEER Vs.N.P.SULAIKHA DEN LAW 313

OR 21
IMPROVEMENT TRUST, R90,S.5
2010 (6) LUDIANA Vs. UJAGAR CPC,LIMITAI LIMITATION
SC SCC 786 SINGH OM ACT

SPECIFIC
PATNA 2017 AIR RELIEF S.34, IEA
HC (PATNA) 169 GANESH RAI Vs.JITENDRA ACT,IEA S.114(i)

OR1
R10,OR7 R6
AND OR22
Civ.App NO. R4,
15549 OF PAKAJBHAI RAMESHBHAI CPC,LIMITAI LIMITATION
SC 2017 Vs.JETHABHAI KAKABHAI ON ACT ACT S.21

N.I.ACT:Cr.P.
ALLAHAB 2017 (9) ADJ C:LIMITATIO 138,142(2):2
AD HC 122 ANSAR ALI Vs.STATE OF UP N ACT 56.300;S.5

2019 AIR U.C.SURENDRANATH

SC (SC) 3799 Vs.MANALLY'S BAKERY CPC 0R39 R2A

2016 (11) RINI JOHAR VS.STATE OF

SC SCC 703 M.P CrPC 41 TO 41C

PUNJAB 2017 (3)

& LAW
HARYAN HERALD MADANSINGH Vs.ROOP OR39 R 1
A HC 2148 SINGH CPC AND 2
 Crl.App OF RATALAL Vs.PRAHALD JAT
SC 2014 AND OTHERS CrPC 311

2012 AIR AKRAM KHAN Vs.STATE OF

SC (SC) 308 WB IEA 118

2001(2) SCC LALMUNI DEVI Vs.STATE CRIMINAL

SC 17 OF BIHAR LIABILITY

2007 (13) SUMERSINBH Vs.STATE OF IPC; ARMS

SC SCC 83 GUJARAT ACT 307;25(1-a)

NARAYAN MADGAONKAR
1995 CrLJ Vs.STATE OF
SC 3213 MAHARASTRA CrPC 100(4)

2018 CrLJ X(Ms) Vs. STATE OF CANCELLATI

SC 3070 TELANGANA CrPC 439(2) ON OF BAIL
FSL
REPORT-POI
2014 CrLJ JOSHINDER YADAV 498A,302 SIONING
SC 1175 Vs.STATE OF BIHAR IPC;IEA AND 149; 45 CASE
Crl App STRICT
No.2368-69 KAMALA Vs.M.R.MOHAN PROOF OF
SC OF 2018 KUMAR CrPC 125 MARRIABE
VICTIM IN
MADHYA DVC COULD
PRADES 2009 CrLJ MADHUSUDAN BE A MALE
H HC 3095 Vs.MAMTA DVC 12 AND 28 ALSO

EX PARTE
2017 (8) VIJAY SINGH Vs. SHANTI OR9 R6, OR9 DECREE
SC SCC 837 DEVI CrPC R13 VALIDITY
MAINTAINA
relied on BILITY OF
KERALA 2012 AIR SINDHU S. PANICKER Vs. 138; 420 SUBSEQUEN
HC (SC) 2844 A. BALAKRISHNAN NIACT;IPC R/w34 T CHARGE
 ADDITION
OF SECTION
IN CHARGE
SHEET
AFTER
2014 AIR STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. FRAMING
SC (SC) 620 GIRISH RADHAKRISHNAN CrPC 173 OF CHARGE
Civ.App NO.
4761OF BIJOY SINHA Vs. MEDICAL
SC 2009 BISWANTH DAS CP ACT 24B NEGLIGENCE
SALE OF
PROPERTY
THROUGH
GPA NOT
SC 2009 (7) SCSuraj Lamp & Industrie CPC VALID

RELIED
UPON::
2019(1) MOHAMMAD ZUBER
BOMBAY MMLJ FAROOQI Vs. STATE OF JURISDICTIO
HC 487(SC) MAHARASTRA DVC 12 N

2005(3)SCC LAST SEEN

SC 114 STATE OF UP Vs. SATISH THEORY
STATE OF UTTARAKAND GRANT OF
2017 AIR Vs. MANDIR LAXMAN -RELIEF NOT
SC (SC) 4472 SIDH CPC 0R7 R7 SOUGHT

154,156(3),1
2015 CrLJ SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL 73,190,200,
SC 1130 Vs.C.B.I Cr.P.C 202 & 204 MAGISTRATE

2011(10)SC STATE OF HARYANA Vs. LIMITATION ADVERSE

SC C 404 MANOJ KUMAR ACT 64 POSESSION

2017 AIR MUKUND DEVANGAN Vs.

SC (SC) 3688 ORIENTAL INSURANCE MV ACT 10
CONVICTION
BASED ON
CIRCUSTANT
2014 (12) MADHU Vs. STATE OF IAL
SC SCC 419 KARNATAKA IEA 3 EVIDENCE
 INVESTIGATI
ON BY
POLICE
OFFICIAL
WHO
2005 CrLJ MUKHTIAR AHMED Vs. LODGED
SC 2569 STATE(NCT OF DELHI) CRPC COMPLAINT
WITNESS
EXAMINATIO
AP HIGH 2017 AIR SIRANGAI SHOBA Vs. N OVER
COURT (HYD) 88 SIRANGAI MURALIDHAR CPC OR 18 R 4 SKYPE
ALLAHAB 2015 (3) JIC CHHEDU Vs.
AD HC 46 SHAMUNNISA CRPC 145

INGREDIANT
2010 AIR PASHAURA SINGH Vs. S- SECOND
SC (SC) 922 STATE OF PUNJAB IPC 494 MARRIAGE
NON
REGISTRATI
ON OF FIR
ALLAHAB 2017 CrLJ SMT.SNGEETA DEVI VS. BY STATION
AD HC 2874 SATATE OF UP CRPC 156(3) OFFICER

CRUELTY
BOMBAY MRS.DEEPLAKSHMI Vs. AGAINST
HC 2010 AIR 16 SACHIN RAMESH HMA 13 HUSBAND
DELAY IN
LODGIN
OM PRAKASH Vs. CLAIM WITH
2017 AIR RELIANCE GENRAL INURANCE
SC (SC) 4836 INSURANCE CPA 1986 23 COMPANY

WRONGFUL
2005 AIAR SANGANAGOUDA Vs. CONFINEME
SC (Crl) 861 STATE OF KARNATAKA IPC 348 NT

SANCTION
FOR
2015 CrLJ RAJIB RANJAN Vs. R.VIJAY CRIMINAL
SC 267 KUMAR IPC;CRPC 120B;197 CONSPIRACY
EXEMPTION
FROM
PERSONAL
ALLAHAB 2016 CrLJ ARAVIND KEJRIWAL Vs. APPEARENC
AD HC 128 STATE OF U.P CRPC 205,317 E
 COMMERCI
RAMDEV FOOD AL
2015 (6) PRODUCTS Vs. STATE OF OFFENCES-FI
SC SCC 439 GUJARAT CRPC 154 LING OF FIR

FIR ON
TELEPHONIC
2003 (6) INFORMATI
SC SCC 175 CBI Vs. TAPAN KUMAR CRPC; PCA 154; 13 ON
PUNJAB SUMMONIN
& CRL REV G OF
HARYAN .NO: 4070 SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE ADDITIONAL
A HC OF 2017 0F PUNJAB CRPC 319 ACCUSED
GIST

PROVING IDENTITY OF ACCUSED IS BURDEN OF PROSECUTION

AND NOT DEFENCE
IF ONE OF THE DEFEDANTS HAS EXPIRED PRIOR TO THE FILING OF
THE SUIT,THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF SUCH DEFENDANT
CANNOT BE BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE SUIT UNDER OR22 R4
OF THE CODE
PERMISSION OF COURT TO WITHDRAW SUIT WITH LEAVE TO FILE
FRESH SUIT
POINTS TO CONSIDER WHILE DECIDING QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER A CASE FALLS UNDER SECTION 302 OR 304
SUMMARISED
ONCE APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE EX-PARTE DECREE UNDER O9
R13 IS DISMISSED-HE CANNOT BY FILING FIRST APPEAL DISPUTE
CORRECTNESS OF ORDER POSTING SUIT FOR EX-PARTE HEARING
OR SHOW CAUSE FOR HIS NON APPEARANCE
VALIDITY OF WILL- EXECUTION OF WILL NOT DISPUTED,BUT
OBJECTED ON GROUNDS OF SUSPECIOUS
CIRCUMSTANCES-BURDEN TO PROVE COERCION/INDUCEMENT IS
ON PARTY CONTENDING IT-WILL VALID
DIRECTION BY COURT TO COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TO INITIATE
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICER, FOR
WRONGLY INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.107/151 OF
Cr.PC AND GETTING THE PERSON PROCEEDED AGAINST THEREIN,
SENT TO JUDICIAL CUSTODY THEREUNDER

THERE CAN NEVER BE ANY STRAIGHT JACKET FORMULA OR FIXED

PARAMETERS FOR DETERMINING MENTAL CRUELTY IN
MATRIMONIAL MATTERS-WHAT MAY BE CRUELTY IN ONE CASE
MAY NOT AMOUNT TO CRUELTY IN ANOTHER CASE
TWO DISTINCT PARTS ARE INVOLVED IN OFFENCE 1.THE CREATION
OF AN OBLIGATION IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY OVER WHICH
CONTROL IS AQUIRED BY THE ACCUSED 2.DEALING WITH THE
PROPERTY DIS HONESTLY AND CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF
OBLIGATION CREATED.
HIGH COURT RIGHTLY REFUSED QUASHING CRIMINAL
PROCEEDING ON GROUND OF PENDING CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
MERE FACT THAT MONEY(PAYABLE) IS NOT PAID , IT DOES NOT
AMOUNT OF CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST
DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO COURTS TO ENSURE THAT CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS NOT USED AS AN INSTRUEMENT OR FOR SEEKING
PRIVATE VENDETTA OR WITH AN ULTERIOR MOTIVE TO
PRESSURISE ACCUSED
CHARGES AGAINST ALL APELLANTS U/s 498A/406 NOT MADE
OUT, HENCE QUASHED
EVERY BREACH OF TRUST IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE UNLESS
THERE IS A MENTAL ACT
ENTRUSTMENT PROVED-PROSECUTION NEED NOT TO PROVE
MISAPPROPRIATION-THAT IS FOR ACCUSED TO PROVE IN HIS
DEFENCE

WITHOUT DOMESTIC INCIDENT REPORT,NO INTERIM ORDER CAN

BE PASSED(PARAS 5&6)
MUTATION ENTRIES NEITHER CREATE NOR CONVEY ANY TITLE
EXTINGUISH THE TITLE. SUCH ENTRIES ARE RELEVANT ONLY FOR
COLLECTION OF LAND REVENUE
PROVISION. MANDATES THE PROCEEDINGS TO BE HELD IN
CAMERA IF ONE OF THE PARTIES SO DESIRES,S.22 OF THE 1955
ACT LAYS DOWN THE PROCEEDINGS TO BE HELD IN CAMERA AND
ANY MATTERIN RELATION TO ANY SUCH PROCEEDING MAY NOT
BE PRINTED OR PUBLISHED EXCEPT A JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGH
COURT OR SUPREME COURT (PARA 43)

SIX MONTHS WAITING PERIOD IS NOT MANDATORY BUT

DIRECTORY (PARA 21)
COMPLAINT AGAINST ACCUSED RESIDING AT A PLACE BEYOND
THE AREA IN WHICH THE MAGISTRATE EXERCISES HIS
JURISDICTION-IT WOULD BE MANDATORY TO HOLD ENQUIRY
NO PARTICULAR FORMAT OF A COMPLAINT IS THERE- A PETITON
ADDRESSED TO THE MAGISTRATE CONTAINING AN ALLEGATION
THAT AN OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMITTED AND ENDING WITH
PRAYER THAT CULPRITS BE SUITABLY DEALT WITH, IS A
COMPLAINT
DIRECTION FOR REGISTRATION OF THE CASE AND
INVESTIGATION-PRAYER REJECTED-NEITHER REVISION NOR
APPLICATION U/s.482 Cr.P.C OR WRIT AVAILABLE- APPROPRIATE
REMEDY IS TO FILE THE COMPLAINT U/s.190(1)(b) READ WITH
SEC.200Cr.P.C
THE MAINTENANCE HAD BEEN GRANTED TO A WIFE AND TO A
MINOR SON-UNLESS THERE ARE VERY SPECIAL REASONS,ORDER
OF MAINTENANCE PASSED BY TRAIL COURT SHOULD NOT
NORMALLY BE STAY
DEATH BY HANGING- LEGISLATURE CAN THINK OF SOME OTHER
MODE BY WHICH A CONVICT HAS TO FACE DEATH SENTENCE
SHOULD DIE WITH OUT PAIN- NOTICE ISSUED (PARA8)
APELLANT SENDING NOTICE BY POST UNDER CERTIFICATE OF
POSTIN- NO ALLEGATION OF CERTIFICATE OF POSTING HAVE BEEN
PROCURED- NOTHING WRONG IN PRESUMING THAT THE NOTICE
MUST HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH IN FIVE DAYS AS APELLANT AND
RESPONDENT ARE RESIDING IN SAME LOCALITY
MENTAL CRUELTY- REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE IN PROCEEDING FOR
DIVORCE AND FORCING THE APPELLANT TO STAY IN A DEAD
MARRIAGE WOULD IT SELF CONSTITUTE MENTAL CRUELTY
WHILE ADMITTING APPEAL/REVISION, IT IS PERFECTLY OPEN TO
COURT TO DIRECT TENENT TO PAY RENT HIGHER THAN
CONTRACTUAL RENT (PARAS 44 & 46 )
TAPE RECORDED EVIDENCE IS NOT SECONDARY EVIDENCE WHICH
REQUIRES CERTIFICATE UNDER SEC.65B, SINCE IT WAS ORIGINAL
CASSETTE BY WHICH RANSOME CALL WAS RECORDED-RELEVANT
UNDER S.7 AND PRIMARY EVIDENCE RELIED BY COMPLAINANT - IS
ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE (PARA 24)
IN A CASE UNDER NDPS ACT, PARTICULARLY WHERE SERIOUS
ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE AGAINST POLICE OFFICIALS-RECOVERY
OF CONTRABAND IN PRESENCE OF INDEPENDENT WITNAESS
ASSUMED SIGNIFICANCE
IF ACCUSED DOES AN ACT WITH INTENTION OR KNOWLEDGE
THAT HE MIGHT CAUSE DEATH AND HURT IS CAUSED S.307 OF
CODE OF 1860 APPLIES, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT INJURY IS ON
VITAL PART OF THE BODY OF THE VICTIM

POLICE REFUSED TO REGISTER COUNTER COMPLAINT-IT IS OPEN

TO MAGISTRATE AT ANY STAGE TO DIRECT POLICE TO REGISTER
COMPLAINT-SUCH DIRECTIONIS NOT HIT BY S.161 OR 162
IN EXERCOSE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER S.204 OF
CRPC AGINST ORDER OF ISSUING PROCESS, COURT CAN ONLY
EXAMINE WHETHER THER WAS MATERIAL BEFORE THE COURT
TO TAKE VIEW THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT GROUND TO
PROCEED AGAINST ACCUSED
PUNISHMENT OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY- MEETING OF MIND OF
TWO OR MORE PERSONS TO DO AN ILLEGAL ACT OR AN BY
ILLEGAL MEANS IS A MUST TO CONSTITUTE CONSPIRACY-NOT
NECESSARY THAT ALL CONSPIRATORS MUST KNOW EACH AND
EVERY DETAIL OF THE CONSPIRACY- NOR IT IS NECESSARY TO
PROVE THEIR ACTIVE PART/ROLE IN SUCH MEETING
RECALL OF WITNESS-MERELY BECAUSE ACCUSED PERSONS ARE
IMPRISIONED AND CHANGE OF COUNSEL BY DEFENCE AND THEIR
FAILURE TO PUT CERTAIN QUESTIONS TO WITNESSES IS NO
GROUND TO RECALL WITNESS Us.311 CRPC
COMPLAINT AGAINST FILING FALSE AFFIDAVIT-PROSECUTION FOR
PERJURY SHOULD BE SANCTIONED BY COURTS ONLY IN THOSE
CASES WHERE THE PERJURY APPEARS TO BE DELIBERATE AND
CONVICTION IS PROBABLE-THER MUST BE PRIMA FACIE CASE OF
DELIBERATE FALSEHOOD ON A MATTER OF SUBSTANCE AND THE
COURT SHOULD BE SATISFIED THAT THERE IS REASONABLE
FOUNDATION FOR THE CHARGE
NO EMBARGO IN PROVIDING TO THE ACCUSED A COPY OF THE
CCTV FOOTAGE WHICH IS RELIED ON BY THE PROSECUTION IN
THE SUBJECT CASE(PARA 37),CCTV FOOTAGE IS "DATA" AND IT IS A
ELECTRONIC RECORD AS DEFINED Us.2(t), IN A CASE OF BRUTAL
SEXUAL ABUSE, IF THE INCEDENT HAS BEEN VIDEOTAPRED, IN
VIEW OF THE ELEMENT OF PRIVACY OR TO PREVENT MISUSE,
COPY TO ACCUSED MAY BE REFUSED. THE ELECTRONIC RECORDS
ARE NOT LIMITED TO MERE COMPUTER OUT PUTS-IT MAY ALSO
BE STORED IN SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS LIKE FACEBOOK,
TWITTER ETC OR IN EMAILS AND CAMERA FOOTAGE OR
PHOTOGRAPHS-THUS THE WIDE SCOPE OF OBTAINING DIGITAL
EVIDENCE YIELDS A COMMENSURATE POTENTIAL FOR
RECOVERABLE EVIDENCE(PARA 26)
PF,PENSION,LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES OF THE DECEASED-VICTIM
ARE NOT TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COMPENSATION AWARDED
UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
MERELY BECAUSE APPLICATION FOR POLICE PROTECTION WAS
FILED ONLY UNDER S.151 CPC INVOKING INHERENT
JURISDICTION, IT CANNOT BE A REASON FOR HIGH COURT TO
REJECT IT AND HOLD THAT APPLICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN
FILED UNDER OR21 R32 CPC-IMPUGEND ORDER SET ASIDE. 1
COULD BE TAKEN ONLY AT THE INSTANCE OF THE COURT(BY SAME
COURT) IN RELATION TO WHOSE PROCEEDINGS THE SAME WAS
COMITTED OR WHO FINALLY DEALT WITH THAT CASE
IN A CASE WHERE THE PLAINT IS FILED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF
LIMITATION PRESCRIBED BY LAW BUT WITH DEFICIT COURT FEE
AND THE PALINTIFF SEEKS TO MAKE GOOD THE DEFICIT OF
COURT FEE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, THE COURT,
THOUGH HAS DISCRETION UNDER S.149CPC, MUST SCRUTINIZE
THE EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF THE
DEFICIT COURT FEE CAREFULLY BECAUSE THE EXERCISE OF SUCH
DISCRETION WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE SOME BEARING ON THE
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS OR PERSONS
CLAIMING THROUGH DEFENDANTS
IT IS OPEN FOR THE MAGISTRATE TO AWARD THE SENTENCE UP
TO MAXIMUM ONE MONTH FOR EACH MONTH'S DEFAULT MADE
BY THE PERS0N ORDERED TO PAY THE MAINTENANCE- IN THE
INSTANCE CASE , IN LIEU OF MAXIMUM 12 DEFUALTS, THE
,MAGISTRATE HAS IMPOSED IMPRISIONMENT FOR
12MONTHS.HOW EVER , THE SAME IS THE OUTER LIMIT AND
LESSER IMPRISIONMENT CAN BE IMPOSED.SUCH
IMPRISIONMENT WILL BE FOLLOWED UNTILL THE PAYMENT IS
MADE.
IN ALL CASES WHERE THE PREGNANCY HAS ADVANCED BEYOND
SIX MONTHS AND IF ANY MISCARRIAGE OCCURS BECAUSE OF A
ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, IT IS OPEN TO CLAIM COMPENSATION
IN RESPECT OF LOSS OF BABY, TREATING THE FOETUS AS A VIABLE
CHILD,APART FROM THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE UNDER OTHER
APPROPRIATE HEADS(PARA 20)
UNDER HANAFI LAW, DIVORCE OF WIFE BYA WRITTEN
DOCUMENT IS IRREVOCABLE- THE TALAQ IS,
HOWEVER,COMPLETE ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF
IDDAT-DEED OF DIVORCE IN WRITING CONSTITUTES A VALID
DIVORCE (PARA17)
NO STRAIGHT JACKET FORMULA IS PRESCRIBED TO COME TO THE
CONCLUSION IF SUFFICIENT AND GOOD GROUNDS HAVE BEEN
MADE OUT OR NOT-EACH CASE HAS TO BE WEIGHED FROM ITS
FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES-DELAY OF TWO MONTHS WAS
NOT THAT HUGE, WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDONED,
WITHOUT PUTTING THE RESPONDENTS TO HARM OR PREJUDICE
NO SALE DEED VALID UNLESS CONSIDERATION AMOUNT PASSED
TO VENDOR-EVEN REGISTERED SALE DEED NOT TO CREATE TITLE
IN FAVOUR OF VENDEE UNLESS CONSIDERATION PASSES TO
VENDOR-INTENTION OF PARTIES TO SALE DEED TO BE GATHERED
FROM CONTENT OF SALE DEED.
LEGA; HEIRS OF DECEASED PERSON IN SUCH A MATTER CAN BE
ADDED IN ARRAY OF PARTIES UNDER O1 R10 OF CODE R/W S.151
OF CODE SUBJECT TO PLEA OF LIMITATION AS CONTEMPLATED
UNDER O7 R6 OF CODE AND S.21 OF LIMITATION ACT,TO BE
DECIDED DURING COURSE OF TRAIL-NO BAR FOR FILING
APPLICATION UNDER O1 R10, EVEN WHEN APPLICATION UNDER
O22 R4 WAS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE
EARLIER FILED A COMPLAINT WITH IN TIME AND IT WAS
DISMISSED FOR HIS NON APPEARANCE UNDER S.256 CrPC AND
THAT ORDER WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE ANY COURT AND IT
HAD ATTAINED FINALITY-SINCE S.256(1) CrPC SPECIFICALLY
PROVIDES THAT FOR NON APPEARANCE OF COMPLAINANT WHEN
COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED ACCUSED SHALL BE AQUITTED-ON
SAME FACTS HE CANNOT BE TRIED FOR SECOND TIME IN VIEW OF
BAR PROVIDED BY SECTION 300,CrPC
A WILFUL DISOBEDIANCE BEING IN NATURE OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY ,SAME HAS TO BE PROVED TO SATISFACTION OF COURT
THAT DISOBEDIENCE WAS NOT MERE"DISOBEDIANCE" BUT A
"WILFUL DISOBEDIANCE"
ARREST IN VIOLTION OF DUE PROCEDURE,SERIOUSLY
JEOPARADISING DIGNITY OF BOTH LADY PETITIONERS(ONE
ADVOCATE AND ANOTHER DOCTOR)-COMPENSATION OF RS.5
LAKHS EACH, GRANTED TO THEM,THEREFORE, WHICH IS TO BE
PAID BY STATE- STATE OPEN TO PROCEED AGAINST ERRING
OFFICALS,IF ADVISED
IN CASE OF GRANT OF AD INTERIM INJUNCTION-COURTS TO
ADDRESS ITS ESSENTIAL TO EXISTANCE OR OTHERWISE OF THREE
ASPECTS 1. EXISTANCE OF PRIMA FACIE CASE 2. BALANCE OF
CONVENIENCE IN FAVOUR OF APPLICANT AND 3.IRREPARABLE
LOSS OR DAMAGE TO PARTY IN CASE INTERIM INJUNCTION
DENIED
RECALL IS NOT A MATTER OF COURSE AND THE DISCRETION
GIVEN TO THE COURT HAS TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY TO
PREVENT FAILURE OF JUSTICE. THEREFORE, THE REASONS FOR
EXERCISING THIS POWER SHOULD BE SPELT OUT IN THE ORDER.
EVIDENCE OF CHILD WITNESS-VICTIM BOY WAS STUDENT OF
CLASS VI AT RELAVANT TIME, TRAIL COURT SATISFYING HIS
CAPACITY TO DEPOSE, ACCEPTED HIS EVIDENCE TO EXTENT THAT
HE WAS KIDNAPPED AND DETAINED IN HOUSE AND ANOTHER
PERSON- THE APPELLANT, MADE TELEPHONE CALLS DEMANDING
RANSOM AND ALSO THREATENED PW2 ON VARIOUS
OCCASSIONS, EVIDENCE IS RELIABLE
FACTS GIVING RISE TO A CIVIL CLAIM AND ALSO AMOUNTING TO
AN OFFENCE-MERELY BECAUSE A CIVIL CLAIM IS MAINTAINABLE
DOES NOT MEAN THAT CRIMINAL LIABILITY CANNOT BE
MAINTAINED- CRIMINAL PROSECUTION CANNOT BE QUASHED
MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS A CIVIL WRONG
IF PROSECUTION CASE OF ATTEMPT TO MURDER BY GUN SHOT
INJURY FAILS- RESULTANTLY PROSECUTION UNDER S,25 OF ARMS
ACT WOULD ALSO FAIL
SEARCH AND SEIZURE-REQUIREMENT THAT THE OFFICER SHALL
CALL UPON TWO OR MORE INDEPENDENT AND RESPECTABLE
INHABITANTS OF THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE PLACE IS TO BE
SEARCHED- THE COURT GENERALLY LOOK FOR COMPLAINCE OF
THIS PROVISION
VERY COGENT AND OVERWHELMING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE
NECESSARY FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING THE CANCELLATION OF
BAIL ALREADY GRANTED

WHERE THERE IS OTHER CLINCHING EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE

CASE OF POISIONING, ACCUSED CAN BE CONVICTED IN THE
ABSENCE OF VESCERA REPORT (PARAS 23,24 AND 260
AS IT IS SUMMARY IN NATURE THE STANDARD OF PROOF OF
MARRIAGE IN S.125 PROCEEDING IS NOT AS STRICT AS IS
REQUIRED IN A TRIAL FOR AN OFFENCE UNDER S.494 IPC

IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN DVC ALWAYS A WOMAN IS A VICTIM

OR SUFFERER PARTY-THERE MAY BE CASES OF HERE MALE
PARTNERS WERE HARASSED (PARA 9)
1)AS LONG AS EXPARTE DECREE NOT RECALLED OR SET ASIDE- IT
IS LEGALLY BINDING UP ON PARTIES.(PARA 12) :: 2) MERE FACT
THAT EXPARTE DECREE EXECUTED-NOT TO DISENTITLE
DEFENDANT FROM APPLYING TO GET SAME SET ASIDE(PARA17)
IF A PERSON HAS BEEN TRIED AND DEALT WITH FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER S.138 OF THE N.I.ACT, ON SIMILAR
FACTS, HE CAN BE SUBSEQUENTLY TRIED FOR AN OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER S.420 IPC
CASE BASED ON FIR-CORRECT STAGE FOR ADDITION OR
SUBTRACTION OF SECTIONS OF IPC IN CHARGE SHEET IS AT THE
TIME OF FRAMING OF CHARGE
OPERATION OF THE PATIENT CONDUCTED IN HOSPITAL HAVING DECIDED
NO ICU FACILITY- DEATH OF PATIENT- IT IS MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE- DATE:03/
COMPENSATION OF Rs.5 LAKHS AWARDED (PARA15) 08/2017

PROPERTY SALES THROUGH GPA WILL NOT GIVE OWNERSHIP

TITLE TO THE BUYER, A THREE JUDGE BENCH SAID THAT
PROPERTY CAN BE LAWFULLY TRANSFERRED ONLY THROUGH
RGISTERED SALE DEEDS
THE ALLEGED DOMESTIC VIOLANCE IS NOT COMMITTED IN INDIA,
BUT IN USA- RESPONDENT/WIFE, HOWEVER TEMPORARILY
RESIDING IN MUMBAI-HELD, COURT WHERE WIFE TAKES SHELTER
AFTER LEAVING OR DRIVEN AWAY FROM MATRIMONIAL HOME
ALSO HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN COMPLAINT-
COMPLAINT IN COURT AT MUMBAI MAINTAINABLE
THE LAST SEEN THEORY COMES IN TO PLAY WHERE THE TIME-GAP
BETWEEN THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ACCUSED AND THE
DECEASED WERW LASR SEEN ALIVE AND THE DECEASED IS
FOUND DEAD IS SO SMALL THAT POSSIBILITY OF ANY PERSON
OTHER THAN THE ACCUSED BEING THE AUTHOR OF THE CRIME
BECOMES IMMPOSSIBLE.EVEN IN SUCH A CASE, THE COURTS
SHOULD LOOK FOR CORROBORATION
COURT ONLY TO GRANT RELIEF CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFF IN
PLAINT-COURT NOT TO TRAVEL BEYOND PLEADINGS FOR GRANT
OF RELIEF
EVEN IF A PERSON NOT NAMED AS AN ACCUSED BY THE POLICE
IN THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED, THE COURT WOULD BE
JUSTIFIED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OFTHE OFFENCE AND TO
SUMMON THE ACCUSED IF IT FEELS THAT THE EVIDENCE AND
MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING INVESTIGATION JUSTIFIES
PROSECUTION OF THE ACCUSED
REVENUE RECORDS REVEALING THAT DISPUTED PROPERTY
STOOD IN THE NAME OF DEFENDANTS-NO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO PERFECT TITLE TO LAND
OR BUILDING BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF ADVERSE POSESSION
DRIVER IS HOLDIUNG A LICENCE TO DRIVE "LIGHT MOTOR
VEHICLE" HE IS NOT COMPETENT TO DRIVE A TRANSPORT
VEHICLE

CONVICTION CAN BE BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IF

CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES IS COMPLETE AND ESTABLISHES
GUILT OF ACCUSED
PRACTICE DEPRECATED- NO CONVICTION CAN BE RECORDED IN
SUCH CASES IN ABSENCE OF INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION
(PARAS 33 & 34)

FROM THE WORD " "WITNESS IN ATTENDANCE" ARE RO BE

UNDERSTAND AS PERSON BEING PRESENT AND IT NEED NOT BE
PHYSICAL PRESENCE
IF CIVIL LITIGATION IS PENDING REGARDING SAME PROPERTY, A
PROCEEDING UNDER S.145 CRPC IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
TO MAKE OUT AN OFFENCE UNDER S.494 IPC THE FOLLOWING
INGREDIANTS BE SATISFIED.1)THE ACCUSED MUST HAVE
CONTRACTED FIRST MARRIAGE,2)HE MUST HAVE MARRIED
AGAIN 3)THE FIRST MARRIAGE MUST BE SUBSISTING 4) THE
SPOUSE MUST BE LIVING

POLICE HAS NO DISCRETION NOT TO REGISTER FIR IN A CASE IN

WHICH A DIRECTION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY A MAGISTRATE UNDER
S.156(3) OF CRPC
PETIOPER WIFE FILED A CASE AGAINST HER HUSBAND ON
GROUND OF "HUSBAND HAVING GIRLFRIEND" WHICH IS PROVED
AS FALSE IN A COURT OF LAW, SO IT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS
CRUELTY AGAINST HUSBAND

CONDITION OF OWNER TO INTIMATE INSURER IMMIDIATELY

AFTER THEFT OF VEHICLE NOT TO BAR SETTLEMENT OF GENUINE
CLAIMS
ACCUSED (DECEASED)ARRESTED AT 9:30 AM. ON 19/10/1988
AND DIED IN POLICE CUSTODY IN POLICE STATION ON 20/10/1988
AT ABOUT 5:30 PM WITH OUT BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE
MAGISTRATE CONCERNED-WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
ESTABLISHED
IF A PUBLIC SERVANT ENTERS INTO A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OR
INDULGES IN CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT, SUCH MISDEMANOR ON
HIS PART IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS AB ACT IN DISCHARGE OF HIS
OFFICIAL DUTIES AND,THEREFOR, PROVISIONS OF S.197 OF THE
CODE WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED

THE PROVISIONS OF S.205 OR S.317 CRPC WILL NOT APPLY

UNLESS THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN GRANTED BAIL AND HE HAS
FURNISHED BAIL BONDS
COMMERCIAL OFFENCES HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE CATEGORY OF
CASES WHER FIR MAY NOT BE WARRANTED WITHOUT ENQUIRY
TELEPHONIC INFORMATION RECEIVED BY POLICE THAT ACCUSED
ACCEPTED RS. 1LAKH AS BRIBE AND ACCUSED WAS CARRYING
THE AMOUNT WITH HIM-GENRAL DAIRY ENTRY MADE-S.P
STARTED INVESTIGATION, RECOVERD THE AMOUNT AND THERE
AFTER FIR LIDGED- NOTHING ILLEGAL-GENRAL DAIRY ENTRY CAN
BE TREATED AS FIR

POWER TO SUMMON ADDITIONAL ACCUSED CAN BE EXERCISED

EVEN AFTER JUDGEMENT AGAINST ORIGINAL ACCUSED (PARA 16
&17)