Legal Edge

  Facts: On 18-2-1988, the appellant filed a complaint against the three respondents, who are her husband, father-in-law and mother-in law respectively, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra alleging commission of offences under Sections 498- A (Cruelty) and 406 (Criminal Breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) by them. On that complaint the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) ( Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case)  of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short) directing the police to register a case and investigate into the same. Pursuant to the said direction Thaneswar Police Station registered a case being FIR No. 61 of 1988 and on completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet (police report) against the three respondents under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said charge-sheet and thereafter framed charge against the three respondents under Section 406 ...

  Facts: The facts of the case are that the informant Shri Vikas Kumar Jha gave a fardbeyan to the effect that at about 5.00 P.M. on 23.7.2005, he had received a call on his telephone number inquiring about his elder brother Shri Anil Kumar Jha. The informant stated before the police that his elder brother, the owner of a medical store, on the said date had been out of town. He submitted that he had communicated the same to the caller. Upon such reply, the caller disclosed himself as Mohan Singh, the appellant herein, and asked the informant to send him Rs.50,000/-. The informant submitted that he had similar conversations with the caller three to four times in the past. The caller threatened him that since the demand of money had not been fulfilled, the informant should be ready to face the consequences. Upon his elder brother’s return, the informant had narrated the events to him. However, his elder brother did not take the threat seriously. Later, the informants elder brother an...

Facts: Death sentence has been awarded by the High Court of Bombay to Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel for double murder. The Bombay High Court confirming the order of conviction and enhancing the sentence of life imprisonment to death and ordered to be hanged till death against which this appeal has been preferred. The High Court heard the arguments of the advocate for the accused as well as the prosecutor on the point as to whether the High Court could enhance the sentence of the accused from life to death. Having noticed that the High Court has the power to enhance the sentence from life imprisonment to death, the High Court issued a notice on 1.12.2005 to the accused to show cause why the sentence of life imprisonment be not enhanced to death sentence. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: The accused was produced before the Court on but the advocate representing the accused was absent. Consequently, he Court on 13.12.2005 recorded the following statement of the ...

    Facts: The appellant (Kartar Singh) is the defendant. Smt Harbans Kaur - respondent executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant of alienating the lands which was held by the respondent and her minor son, Kulwant Singh. Kulwant Singh, on attaining majority declared that sale of his share in the lands mentioned in the schedule attached thereto by his mother was void and does not bind him. The decree ultimately was granted declaring that the sale was void as against the minor. But before taking delivery of the possession, Kulwant Singh died. Harbans Kaur, the mother being Class-I heir under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with the schedule succeeded to the estate of the deceased. The appellant, therefore, laid his claim to the benefit of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882  The High Court in Second Appeal No. 1557 of 1979, while setting aside the decree of the trial court and declared that the sale is void, refused to grant the remedy ...

  Facts: The Executive Chairman, Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-political organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, on 26th August, 1986 addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India drawing his attention to certain news items published in the Telegraph dated 20, 21 and 22 of July, 1986 and in the Statesman and India express dated 17th August, 1986 regarding deaths in police lock-ups and custody. Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court laid down certain basic “requirements” to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as a measure to prevent custodial violence. The requirements read as follows: 1. The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should  bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags  with their designations.  The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a r...

Facts: The respondent in the first of these two appeals and the appellants in the other appeal applied for appointment as Constable-Drivers under the Haryana Police and submitted their respective application forms, which contained two columns, namely, 13(A) and 14, which read as follows:- 13(A): Have you ever been arrested? 14: Have you ever been convicted by the Court of any offence? As far as the respondent in SLP(C) No. 1840 of 2007, Dinesh Kumar, is concerned, he answered the said two queries in the negative. Subsequently, during verification of the character and antecedents of the said respondent, it was reported that he had been arrested in connection with a case arising out of FIR but he and his family were acquitted and he had been granted bail without having been arrested.  The appellant, however, alleged that the respondent had concealed these facts from the Selection Committee and had not correctly furnished the information in columns 13(A) and 14 of the application...

Facts:  The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 498-A IPC  (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The maximum sentence provided under Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two years and with fine. The petitioner attempt to secure anticipatory which has been denied by High Court and Sessions Court.  Issue: Whether the police have arbitrary power under section 41 (1) (b), CrPc to make arrest? Ratio Decidendi: Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence with a punishment for 3 years. We believe that no arrest should be made only because the offence is nonbailable and cognizable and therefore, lawful for the police officers to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing, the justification for the exercise of it ...