Brar Associates

29/12/2025

#

16/04/2025

Indian Penalty Legislation, 1860—Article 304-B and Article 498-A—Dowry Death and Marital Cruelty—Appeal against Guilty by Prosecution—Order of Guilty intacts—No close relation between Cruelty and Death—Supplication not applicable under Section 106 Evidence Act—where the death of the dead occurred due to the intake of poison (Aluminum Phosphide) and in postmortem No signs of external injuries or throat were found and medical evidence could not clarify whether poison was forced or not, there was not convicted of section 106 evidence act on the basis of being present at the accused's house May go—as long as there was no direct and concrete relationship between alleged marital cruelty and unnatural death for dowry and evidence of the deceased being dissatisfied with their marriage, the trial court decision found logical and legal—no in the decision No distortion or legal error found—criminal appeal has no guts and is denied.

11/04/2025

30/03/2025

Case No @ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 724 OF 2025

REKHA SHARAD USHIR

Vs

SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI
SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD.

The Court stated that the recording of the compainant's statement on oath was not an empty formality; Magistrates must put questions to elicit the truth.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed a complaint filed for the offence of cheque dishonour under the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) after noting that the complainant suppressed material facts and abused the judicial process by withholding loan documents. The Court observed that criminal law cannot be set in motion by suppressing material facts.

20/11/2024

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the provision of Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, cannot be allowed to be misused by the able bodied wives to sit idly at home.

Justice Nidhi Gupta said, "The purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. The said provision cannot be permitted to be misused to allow able bodied wives to sit idly at home while the husband works, earns, looks after the day to day, emotional, financial, and physical requirements, and maintains the minor children as also his other dependent family members."

These observations were made while hearing the plea against the order of the Family Court whereby the the petition filed by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed holding she is not entitled to final or interim maintenance.

Counsel for the wife submitted that she is a mere villager and the husband is working as a mason in a factory and earning Rs.12,000 per month.

It was submitted that during marriage life of the petitioner, she was beaten mercilessly by the husband and his family.

An FIR under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC in 2015 was also registered and pending.

It was submitted that the plea for maintenance was rejected by the family court on the ground the petitioner was unable to give the particulars i.e. the date, time and birthplace of her first child in the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C and erroneous finding of the court that the wife is earning Rs.6-7 thousands per month.

After hearing the submissions and perusing the order passed by the Family Court, the Court noted that, the Family Court on the basis of evidence arrived at the conclusion that it is the wife who had deserted the matrimonial home without sufficient cause since 2014.

Perusing the record, the Court found that two children were born out of their wedlock who are admittedly in the care and custody of the husband.

Furthermore, the judge highlighted that the wife has not filed any application seeking custody of her minor children.

"It has also come on record that the minor children were aged between 1-3 years of age when the petitioner left the matrimonial home. Clearly, therefore, under the above Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance," it added.

Justice Gupta pointed that, "It is the categoric finding of the learned Family Court that the respondent is doing private job in a factory and is earning only Rs.6-7 thousand per month. Besides that, the respondent is also maintaining the minor children along with his old, aged mother."

On the other hand, the wife has no such responsibility and living separately at her parental home, added the judge.

The Court observed that, "it is first and foremost duty of the petitioner to maintain herself. Especially keeping in mind, the fact that she is able-bodied. The purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution."

Opining that the wife cannot be permitted to misuse the provision under Section 125 CrPC, the Court said, "no ground is made out that calls for interference in the impugned order" passed by the Family Court.

Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

Mr.Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.

Title: ### v. ###

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 281

05/11/2024

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC on proceedings under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Pankaj Jain said, "The scheme of the Act of 2005 (Domestic Violence Act) provides that all proceedings under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 are to be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and thus it is not possible to hold that Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable to the proceedings arising out of complaints filed under the Act of 2005."

The development came after a Single judge referred questions to the Division Bench, seeking clarification due to conflicting interpretations on the applicability of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC on the proceedings arising out of DV Act.

The Court mainly considered the question, "Once Section 28(1) prescribes that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can it be held that application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is ousted?"

After analysing the provisions, the Court said, "It is too broad a proposition to hold that merely for the reason that the complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 seeking relief as provided under Chapter IV deals with civil right, applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is ousted."

The bench added, If we stretch it further, the natural corollary will be to hold that inherent powers of the High Court under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 can be invoked and shall govern the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 as it deals with civil rights. Holding so will militate against the mandate of Section 28(1) of the Act of 2005.

The Court also said that there is no provision under the DV Act that ousted the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 CrPC.

Speaking for the bench Justice Pankaj Jain concluded that, "Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 B.N.S.S. is applicable qua proceedings arising out of complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005. The only exception is the cases where provisions of the Act of 2005 have been invoked in proceedings pending before Civil Court or Family Court."

31/10/2024

Can the Deepawali celebration of light's victory over darkness translate to reality amidst today's pervasive culture of complaints, criticism, and comparison, which spawns anxiety, stress, chaos, confusion, and complexities? Will 2024 mark the beginning of a concerted effort to replace these harmful patterns with purpose, patience, perseverance, persistence, politeness, plurality, and perfection, and thus live the festival's spirit?