Category Archives: Blog

Courts are empowered to direct deposit of rent at a rate at which the tenant is found to have agreed to pay rent to the landlord on the basis of documents on record even if the tenant disputes or controverts the same as upheld by the High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by Justice Amit Bansal in the case of Sunil Dutt Sharma v. Rajni Sharma (CM(M) 2/2020 & CM No. 46/2020 (for stay))

The brief facts of the case are that the suit from which the present petition arises was filed for possession, recovery of arrears of rent, damages, interest and permanent injunction in respect of a property at Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. The suit property was let out to petitioner for a period of eleven months with effect from 1st May, 2015 for rent of Rs.20,000/- per month exclusive of electricity, water and other charges. A registered Rent Agreement was executed between the parties on 8th May, 2015. The petitioner used to make payment of rent through monthly cheques but was a chronic defaulter and had defaulted in payment of monthly rent and other charges since June, 2015.

The Hon’ble Court held, “It is an admitted position that the Rent Agreement between the parties was a registered document and that the petitioner has not denied his signatures on the said document. It is also a matter of fact that in terms of the said registered Rent Agreement, the petitioner made payments of Rs.20,000/- towards rent by way of cheques which were dishonoured. In the present case, the Trial Court has correctly fixed the deposit of rent under Order XV-A of the CPC on the basis of the rent agreed between the parties in the registered Rent Agreement. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court which requires interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

Putting questions to the prosecutrix/victim with regards to the change in version by her in the statements under Section 161 of the CrPC and in the statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, clearly shows disrespect to the courts who have recorded the statements under Section 164 of the Code as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad through a learned bench of Justice Samit Gopal in Dharmendra Vs State of U.P [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 31695 Of 2021] with CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 20006 Of 2021 and CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 30288 Of 2021.

The brief facts of the case are that the Court was hearing three bail applications, argued on a particular issue common in all of them, however, the Court did not go into the merits of the cases, and rather dealt with a specific question, which is as follows: “Whether the Investigating Officer of a case, can, after recording the statement of a prosecutrix/victim once under Section 161 of CrPC who has supported the prosecution case and then in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code recorded before a Magistrate has given a different version and more particularly does not state about any wrongful act being committed on her as has been recorded in her statement under Section 161 of the Code earlier, can again interrogate the prosecutrix/victim under Section 161 of the Code and put specific questions to her pertaining to the two different versions given by her in the said two statements and then record the statements and proceed with the Investigation further?”

Essentially, the Court was concerned with the question as to whether a police officer can question/interrogate a rape victim again, who first supported the case of prosecution alleging rape in her statement recorded under 161 CrPC, but later on, gives a different version and more particularly does not state about any wrongful act being committed in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code before the Magistrate.

In conclusion, while observing that under Section 164 of CrPC, the statement of a victim is recorded by Judicial Magistrates in the discharge of their judicial functions and therefore, the act of the Investigating Officer putting a question to the victim as to why she gave out a different version before the magistrate (in comparison to her statement under 161) is not appreciable. The court stated that “By putting questions to the prosecutrix/victim in her second statement under Section 161 of the Code after recording of the statement under Section 164 of the Code relating to the different versions in the said two statements, the Investigating Officer cannot frustrate the same and also make an attempt to make the purpose of the said exercise look a farce…The act of putting specific questions pertaining to the variations in the said two statements by the Investigating Officer is viewed with an impression of clearly challenging the authority of a judicial act. The Investigating Officers have clearly exceeded their jurisdiction by proceedings to investigate in such a manner. The same appears to be with a sole purpose to frustrate the statements recorded by a Magistrate.”

Lastly, the Court directed the DGP to issue necessary guidelines within a period of one month and also asked the state counsels and registry to submit a compliance report within one week thereafter.

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

The plea of the petitioner that by virtue of an agreement and an affidavit, the immovable property cannot be transferred is a plea, which can be examined by a competent court of civil jurisdiction provided the petitioner approaches it by way of appropriate proceeding as held by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh through a learned bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar in the case of Raj Kumar Vs Union Territory of J&K and others [WP(C) No.1940/2021 CM No.6456/2021].

The case set up by the petitioner was that mother of the petitioner was owner in possession of subject land and that the petitioner was a migrant registered with the Relief Commissioner, Jammu. Inhabitants of village Gaberpora Hawl, on the strength of an agreement and an affidavit executed by the mother of the petitioner, got a fraudulent mutation attested in the year 1985. The petitioner claimed that he is a migrant and the property left by him in the valley is protected by Jammu & Kashmir Migrant Immovable Property (Preservation, Protection and Restraint on Distress Sales) Act, 1997 and the District Magistrate being custodia legis of the property of the migrants is bound in law to take over the possession of such land from the encroachers and hand it over to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that the agreement and affidavit shown to have been made and sworn by the petitioner’s mother cannot result in transfer of the immovable property as the same is in violation of Section 138 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner claimed to have approached the District Magistrate with an application to retrieve the land from encroachers but no action has been initiated by the District Magistrate (Deputy Commissioner), Pulwama, hence this petition was filed.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Aijaz Chisti, the Hon’ble High Court found no merit in the petition by observing that in the absence of challenge to the mutation attested as far as back on 24th June, 1985, the plea of the petitioner that the aforesaid mutation was not in consonance with law cannot be examined by this Court in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Hon’ble court while observing the same stated that “The plea of the petitioner that by virtue of an agreement and an affidavit, the immovable property cannot be transferred is a plea, which can be examined by a competent court of civil jurisdiction provided the petitioner approaches it by way of appropriate proceeding. Bypassing the aforesaid remedies, the petitioner being a registered migrant appears to have invoked jurisdiction of Divisional Commissioner, Jammu for retrieving his land by proceeding under the Act and on the directions of the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir the reports have been prepared by the revenue officers indicating the recorded position and submitted to the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir.”

In conclusion, while observing that the petitioner had made an application to the District Magistrate, Pulwama also on 27.07.2021. However, without allowing the District Magistrate to proceed in the matter and take the proceedings to logical end, the petitioner has once again found out shortcut and has approached this Court as if this Court is vested with the powers of the District Magistrate under the Act, the court stated that “The course adopted by the petitioner is, therefore, not permissible in law and for all these reasons this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

Petitioners alleged of assault granted bail after establishing the grounds that they were only a part of exhortation and had not committed any overt act by themselves. The Court considered the matter and passed the order of granting bail keeping in consideration the act and that they had no other criminal antecedent. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Akhilesh Chaudhary and Ors. v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 38228 of 2020]. 

The facts of the case were that the petitioners were apprehended arrest in connection to a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged against the petitioner that he has committed the assault on the informant and other persons. It is specified that he had exhorted to kill on which the co-accused that he had attacked with Hasuli on the victim, who had sustained injuries on the neck and had fallen. Another co-accused has been alleged of causing injuries on the neck, hands, and back.

The Learned Counsel of the Petitioner has submitted that there exists a counter case for the same which has been instituted by the Petitioner’s son as against the informant and others under Section 342, 323, 324, and 504/34 of the Indian penal Code. The Petitioner’s side had suffered injuries caused by the dagger. Also, there exist no specific allegations against the Petitioner No. 2 and 3 and hence, they were just a part of the mob present during the incident. They further added that the only allegation against Petitioner No. 1 is that he had exhorted to kill but no overt act has been attributed to him.

The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the Petitioners had a common intention of assaulting the informant and others. However, it wasn’t controverted that he had only been alleged of exhortation. Hence, no overt act has been alleged.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the fact that the petitioner no. 1 is said to have only extorted others to kill the informant and there being no overt act alleged against petitioners no. 2 and 3 and all the petitioners having no other criminal antecedent, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.” The petition hence stood disposed of on the terms and conditions of the bail.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

Appellant being aged 81 years old granted anticipatory bail in the matter of assault and abusing the informant in the name of caste. The allegations were found to be general and omnibus by the court and hence, the decision was taken by keeping into consideration the age of the appellant and others. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Durganand Choudhary v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Appeal (Sj) No. 3801 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case were that an instant appeal was directed against the order by which prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant was rejected. The appellant was apprehended arrest in connection with the Case, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3(1)(iii)(ix)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The allegation is of assault and abuse in the name of a caste of the informant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is 81 years of age and has been implicated with mala fide intention. It was submitted that no overt act is alleged against him and only general and omnibus allegation that there was abuse using caste word. It was added that the appellant had no criminal antecedent and there was a dispute against a plot of land of which the existing rival parties are claiming ownership. The Special Public Prosecutor contended that the appellant was also a party to the case of the assault and abuse in the name of caste against the informant.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of there being general and omnibus allegation of assault and use of abusive caste language as also the appellant having no criminal antecedent, being aged about 81 years and seven similarly situated co-accused having been granted anticipatory bail, the Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail.” The appeal was allowed and the order impugned was set aside.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish