0

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail Amidst Reconciliation Efforts in Domestic Abuse Case

Blog, Karnataka High Court , , ,

Case Title: Hanish Abdul Khadar vs. State of Karnataka & Shilpa

Case Number: CRL.A No. 582 of 2024

Dated On: 21st May, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S Rachiah

FACTS OF THE CASE

Hanish Abdul Khadar and Shilpa were married on July 15, 2021. Following their marriage, the couple began residing at Shobha Arcades Apartment in Horamavu, Bangalore. Despite the initial period of settling into their married life, their relationship soon became strained. The environment in their household was marked by frequent quarrels and conflicts, which disrupted their domestic harmony. According to the complaint filed by Shilpa, she faced continuous harassment from Hanish. She alleged that Hanish subjected her to various forms of mistreatment and failed to take proper care of her. The harassment was not limited to physical neglect but also involved emotional and psychological abuse. Shilpa’s dissatisfaction and distress grew as she felt unsupported and mistreated in her matrimonial home. Despite the ongoing marital issues, Shilpa became pregnant and gave birth to a child on April 5, 2022. The birth of their child, instead of bringing the couple closer, further strained their relationship. Shilpa alleged that after the birth of their child, Hanish deserted her. She claimed that he threw her out of their home, citing her scheduled caste background as the primary reason for such drastic action. This act of desertion left Shilpa and their newborn child without support or shelter. Aggrieved by the treatment she received, Shilpa lodged a formal complaint against Hanish with the Hennur Police Station. The police registered a case under Crime No.456/2023. Following the registration of the complaint, the police conducted an investigation into the allegations. The investigation culminated in the submission of a charge sheet against Hanish, detailing the alleged offences and the evidence gathered.

ISSUES 

  1. Whether the order passed by the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-71) in Crl.Misc.No.2244/2024 dated 05.03.2024, which denied bail to Hanish Abdul Khadar, should be set aside.
  2. Whether the allegations that Hanish Abdul Khadar deserted and harassed Shilpa based on her scheduled caste background are substantiated and justify the charges under Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act.
  3. Whether the reported reconciliation and mutual decision to live together between Hanish Abdul Khadar and Shilpa should influence the court’s decision to grant bail to Hanish, considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Indian Penal Code (IPC):

  1. Section 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband):
    • This section deals with the cruelty inflicted by the husband or his relatives on the wife, which includes any willful conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health.

2. Section 354 (Assault or Criminal Force to Woman with Intent to Outrage Her Modesty):

    • This section punishes anyone who assaults or uses criminal force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.

3. Section 506 (Criminal Intimidation):

    • This section deals with the offense of criminal intimidation, where a person threatens another with injury to their person, reputation, or property, with the intent to cause alarm.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act):

  1. Section 3(1)(a):
    • This section punishes any person who forces a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance.

2. Section 3(1)(r):

    • This section punishes anyone who intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

3. Section 3(2)(va):

    • This section provides for enhanced punishment for offenses under the Indian Penal Code, committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.

4. Section 3(1)(w)(i):

    • This section deals with the punishment for any person who, being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit her sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed.

Section 14(A)(2) of SC/ST Act, 1989:

  • This provision allows for an appeal against the order of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court denying bail to an accused person. The section ensures that the accused has the right to appeal to a higher court for the grant of bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant, Hanish Abdul Khadar, through his counsel, contended that the allegations made by his wife, Shilpa, stemmed from a series of misunderstandings and misconceptions. He argued that despite the serious nature of the accusations, Shilpa had agreed to reconcile with him. The couple had decided to resolve their differences and live together again. The appellant’s counsel emphasised that the willingness to reconcile and cohabit suggested that the situation had been misinterpreted and was capable of amicable resolution outside the judicial process. Hanish’s counsel further argued that the offences charged against him under Sections 498A, 354, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va), and 3(1)(w)(i) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were not severe enough to warrant continued denial of bail. It was highlighted that the alleged offences did not involve punishment with death or imprisonment for life, thus meriting consideration for bail. Additionally, the appellant assured the court of his commitment to abide by any conditions imposed as part of his bail. He pledged to appear before the court on all specified dates and to refrain from tampering with evidence or intimidating prosecution witnesses. The counsel stressed that these assurances mitigated the risks associated with granting bail, ensuring compliance with legal protocols and protection of the complainant’s interests. The appellant’s counsel posited that granting bail would facilitate the restoration of the couple’s matrimonial life, benefiting both parties and their child. They argued that the judicial system should support the reconciliation process, enabling the family to overcome past grievances and build a stable future together. The counsel urged the court to consider the broader social and familial implications of granting bail, promoting harmony and resolution over prolonged litigation. These contentions underscored the appellant’s position that the allegations were based on misunderstandings, the offences did not justify prolonged detention, and the reconciliation between the parties warranted a compassionate and practical approach by the court in granting bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, represented by the State Public Prosecutor, vehemently opposed the appellant’s appeal for bail. They argued that the allegations levelled against the appellant by his wife, Shilpa, were of a grave nature and warranted serious consideration. The respondent contended that the accusations of harassment, emotional abuse, and discrimination based on caste were significant and could not be dismissed lightly. Furthermore, the respondent highlighted the potential risk of the appellant committing similar offences if released on bail. Given the severity of the charges and the history of discord in the marital relationship, there was concern that granting bail might embolden the appellant to engage in further misconduct or intimidation towards the complainant or other potential witnesses. This risk underscored the necessity of ensuring the safety and security of the complainant and upholding the integrity of the judicial process. The respondent stressed the importance of obtaining formal confirmation from the complainant, Shilpa, regarding any purported reconciliation or settlement between the parties. Without a clear and unequivocal statement from Shilpa, it was argued that the court could not rely solely on the appellant’s assertions regarding reconciliation. The respondent emphasised the need for the complainant’s affidavit or appearance in court to corroborate any claims of reconciliation and assess the voluntariness and sincerity of such actions. In conclusion, the respondent urged the court to deny the appellant’s appeal for bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations, the risk of reoffending, and the absence of clear evidence or confirmation of reconciliation. They emphasised the need to prioritise the protection and welfare of the complainant, ensuring her safety and access to justice without undue influence or intimidation. These contentions presented by the respondent underscored the gravity of the allegations, the potential risks associated with granting bail, and the necessity of formal confirmation from the complainant regarding any reconciliation or settlement between the parties.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

After carefully considering the arguments presented by both parties and examining the contents of the charge sheet, the court acknowledged the strained nature of the marital relationship between the appellant, Hanish Abdul Khadar, and the respondent, Shilpa. The court noted the serious allegations of harassment, emotional abuse, and discrimination based on caste raised by Shilpa against Hanish. However, the court also took into account the appellant’s contention regarding the possibility of reconciliation between the parties. The reported willingness of Hanish and Shilpa to resolve their differences and live together again suggested the potential for a peaceful resolution outside the judicial process.

In light of the above considerations, the court proceeded to grant bail to the appellant, Hanish Abdul Khadar. The court recognized the importance of facilitating the restoration of the matrimonial life of the parties involved. It emphasised the need to support efforts towards reconciliation and harmony within the family, particularly for the well-being of their child.

The court imposed specific conditions on the bail granted to Hanish Abdul Khadar to ensure compliance with legal protocols and safeguard the interests of the complainant, Shilpa. These conditions included the appellant’s mandatory appearance before the court on all specified dates, refraining from tampering with evidence or intimidating prosecution witnesses, and complying with any other directives issued by the court. Furthermore, the court warned that any violation of the bail conditions would result in the prosecution being at liberty to seek the cancellation of bail. This provision served as a deterrent against potential misconduct by the appellant and reinforced the importance of upholding the integrity of the legal process.

In conclusion, the court’s judgement aimed to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the protection of the complainant’s interests. It sought to facilitate the reconciliation process while ensuring accountability and adherence to legal norms, thereby promoting the principles of justice and equity in the resolution of the case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view udgement

0

Karnataka HC rejected criminal petition due to violation of Bail COnditions and Unsupported Covid-19

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , ,

Case Title: Sri kirana and Sri Vasantha vs. State of Karnataka

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 4068 of 2024

Dated On : 16th May, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P Sandesh

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sri Kirana, son of Devarju K. Gowda, aged about 20 years, and Sri Vasantha, son of Sri Vasantha, aged about 22 years, are the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 4068 of 2024 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. They reside in different locations within Bengaluru. The petitioners are seeking bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No.216/2016 registered at Tavarekere Police Station, Magadi Circle, Ramanagara District. The charges against them include offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 307, 302 read with Section 149. The petitioners had previously been granted bail, but they violated the bail conditions by absconding. They were accused Nos.4 and 8 in the case, which dates back to 2016. Despite being granted bail, they evaded law enforcement from 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. The petitioners’ counsel argued that their absence was due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but there was no evidence presented to confirm whether they had contracted the virus or not. Additionally, it was questioned why they remained in hiding from 2020 to 2023, despite having been granted bail earlier. The court observed that the petitioners’ actions constituted a violation of the previous bail order and noted the significant passage of time since the incident occurred in 2016. Furthermore, it was highlighted that a separate case had been registered due to their absconding, adding complexity to the legal proceedings.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the petitioners, Sri Kirana and Sri Vasantha, violated the bail conditions by absconding, and if so, what consequences should follow.
  2. Whether the reasons provided by the petitioners’ counsel, citing the Covid-19 pandemic, are justified for their absence and evasion from the authorities.
  3. Whether, considering the elapsed time since the incident in 2016, the petitioners’ absconding, and the additional complexities introduced by the split-up case, it is appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of granting bail again.
  4. How to ensure the expeditious consideration of the case by the Trial Court, given the circumstances and the rejection of the bail petition by the High Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
    • Section 143: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
    • Section 147: Punishment for rioting.
    • Section 148: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
    • Section 448: Punishment for house-trespass.
    • Section 427: Mischief causing damage to property.
    • Section 307: Attempt to murder.
    • Section 302: Punishment for murder.
    • Section 149: Every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object.

2. Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section grants the High Court and the Court of Sessions the power to grant bail in certain cases.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Sri. Rajanna C, counsel of the appellant submitted that the petitioners’ failure to appear before the court was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was contended that the pandemic hindered their ability to comply with the legal proceedings. The appellant’s counsel raised a point regarding the absence of concrete evidence to support the claim that the petitioners were unable to appear in court due to Covid-19. It was suggested that there was no material presented to ascertain whether the petitioners had indeed contracted the virus. It was argued that a significant amount of time had passed since the incident occurred in 2016. The appellant’s counsel emphasised that almost eight years had elapsed, yet the case had not reached its finality.  The appellant’s counsel highlighted the fact that the petitioners had previously been granted bail but had violated the conditions of their bail by absconding. This was presented as a violation of the court’s previous order. The counsel pointed out that a separate case had been registered due to the petitioners’ absconding, further complicating the legal proceedings. This complexity was cited as a reason to deny bail to the petitioners. These contentions were put forth by the appellant’s counsel to argue against granting bail to the petitioners, citing various factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the violation of bail conditions, the passage of time, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case.

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Sri. Divakar Maddur, who is referred to as the High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) submitted that the petitioners had violated the bail conditions by absconding. It was contended that the petitioners’ actions constituted a breach of the court’s previous bail order. The respondent highlighted the timeline of events, stating that the petitioners absconded from the year 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. This prolonged absence was presented as evidence of the petitioners’ disregard for the legal proceedings. The respondent’s counsel challenged the claim made by the appellant’s counsel regarding the petitioners’ absence being attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was argued that there was no material presented to substantiate this claim or confirm whether the petitioners had contracted the virus. The respondent pointed out that due to the petitioners’ absconding, a split-up case had been registered, adding complexity to the legal proceedings. It was suggested that this additional complexity warranted denying bail to the petitioners. These contentions were presented by the respondent’s counsel to support their argument against granting bail to the petitioners, emphasising the violation of bail conditions, the prolonged absence of the petitioners, the absence of evidence regarding Covid-19, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case.

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court acknowledged that the petitioners had violated the bail conditions by absconding, as highlighted by both the appellant’s and respondent’s counsels. This was considered a significant factor in the court’s decision-making process.The court noted the timeline of events, stating that the petitioners had absconded from 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. This extended period of absence was deemed concerning by the court.

The court scrutinised the claim made by the appellant’s counsel regarding the petitioners’ absence being due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was observed that there was no evidence presented to substantiate this claim or confirm whether the petitioners had contracted the virus.

The court acknowledged the additional complexity introduced by the split-up case registered due to the petitioners’ absconding. This was considered a complicating factor in the legal proceedings.

After considering all the arguments presented by both sides, the court exercised its discretion and concluded that it was not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners again. The court emphasised the seriousness of the charges, the violation of bail conditions, the prolonged absence of the petitioners, and the absence of evidence regarding Covid-19 as key factors in its decision.

The court ultimately rejected the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioners seeking bail. Additionally, the Trial Court was directed to consider the matter expeditiously, ensuring timely justice.

In summary, the court’s analysis and judgement focused on the violation of bail conditions, the extended absence of the petitioners, the lack of evidence regarding the Covid-19 claim, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case. These factors collectively led the court to deny the petitioners’ request for bail.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Dowry Harassment, Considering Gravity and Allegations, Bail Granted

Blog, High Court of Karnataka, Karnataka High Court , , ,

Case Title: Chandra Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 3843 of 2024

Dated On: 16th day of May, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant’s marriage with accused No.1, Chandra Mohan, was solemnised on 28.05.2017. At the time of marriage, the complainant’s family provided a dowry that included a 25-gram gold chain, a 10-gram ring, and Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. The couple has two children, aged about five years and one year and nine months. The complainant, a government servant, alleges that accused No.1 married her for her money and property. After the marriage, accused No.1 did not show love and affection and complained that the dowry was insufficient, continuing to mentally torture her. It is alleged that this harassment was instigated by accused Nos.2 to 6 (the family members of accused No.1). On 21.01.2024, between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., accused No.1 allegedly demanded the complainant’s entire salary and the transfer of a property site in her mother’s name to him. When the complainant refused, accused No.1 assaulted her, mishandled her, and attempted to strangle her, threatening her life. The complainant filed a police complaint on 06.03.2024. The police registered a case against the accused for offences under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 114 (abettor present when offence is committed), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case is still under investigation. The petitioners claim that the complaint is a reaction to an earlier complaint filed by Chandra Mohan (accused No.1) on 02.02.2024. In his complaint, Chandra Mohan alleged that the complainant did not allow him to care for his aged mother, who is suffering from cancer. The defence presented documents showing that petitioner No.2 (the mother of accused No.1) is receiving treatment for cancer. The defence argued that the complainant’s allegations are false and were made after the police had previously advised her based on the husband’s complaint. Petitioners 1, 3-6 have professional and personal responsibilities which they argue mitigate against their involvement in the alleged offences. The case revolves around allegations of dowry harassment, assault, and an attempt to murder by the husband and his family members against the complainant, who is his wife. The defence contends the allegations are retaliatory following the husband’s prior complaint about mistreatment by the wife. The court has considered the context, including the health condition of the husband’s mother and the professional background of some petitioners, and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

 ISSUES

  1. Are the allegations made by the complainant against her husband (accused No.1) and his family members (petitioners 2 to 6) credible and substantiated by evidence?
  2. How does the delay between the alleged incident (21.01.2024) and the filing of the complaint (06.03.2024) affect the case?
  3. Should the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail considering the seriousness of the charges and their personal circumstances?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):
    • Section 498A: Husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
      • This section deals with the offence of a husband or his relatives subjecting a woman to cruelty, including physical or mental harm or harassment for dowry.
    • Section 307: Attempt to murder.
      • This section addresses attempts to commit murder, prescribing severe penalties for anyone who does an act with intent to cause the death of another person.
    • Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
      • This section provides punishment for causing hurt voluntarily, which is applicable if physical injuries are inflicted.
    • Section 114: Abettor present when the offence is committed.
      • This section applies when a person abets an offence and is present at the time of its commission.
    • Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
      • This section pertains to intentional insult with the intention of provoking a breach of the peace.
    • Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
      • This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation, which involves threatening someone with injury to their person, reputation, or property.
    • Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in the prosecution of a common object.
      • This section holds every member of an unlawful assembly liable for offences committed in pursuit of the common objective of the assembly.

2.  Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961:

    • Section 3: Penalty for giving or taking dowry.
      • This section prescribes penalties for giving or taking dowry, making it a punishable offence.
    • Section 4: Penalty for demanding dowry.
      • This section deals with the penalty for demanding dowry, which is punishable by law.

3.  Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):

    • Section 438: Direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.
      • This section provides the legal framework for granting anticipatory bail to individuals who anticipate arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Sri D.S. Sathish, Advocate counsel of the appellant submitted that the complaint filed against them is an afterthought and retaliatory in nature. They assert that it was lodged only after the husband filed a complaint against the complainant, suggesting a motive of malice rather than genuine grievances. Pointing out the significant delay between the alleged incident and the filing of the complaint, the appellant contends that this casts doubt on the authenticity and seriousness of the allegations. They argue that such a delay undermines the credibility of the complainant’s claims. The appellant challenges the severity of the allegations by questioning the medical evidence provided. They argue that the injuries documented in the medical report are minor, contradicting the complainant’s claims of a serious assault and attempted murder. Highlighting their respectable positions in society, such as being a teacher and being employed in the police department, the appellant argues that their professional responsibilities make it improbable for them to engage in the alleged criminal activities. The appellant asserts that family members implicated in the complaint are innocent and wrongly accused. They argue that there is no substantial evidence to support the allegations against these individuals. Lastly, the appellant seeks anticipatory bail, emphasising their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and asserting that they pose no threat to the legal process. They argue that given the circumstances and the lack of credibility in the allegations, granting anticipatory bail is justified. These contentions collectively aim to challenge the credibility and timing of the complaint, question the supporting evidence, highlight the appellant’s respectable standing, and seek relief in the form of anticipatory bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Smt. Waheeda M.MHCGP (High Court Government Pleader) counsel of the respondent submitted that the complainant’s allegations of dowry harassment and attempted murder are well-founded and supported by evidence. They argue that the complainant has provided a detailed account of the harassment she faced from her husband and his family members, including specific instances of violence and threats against her life. While acknowledging the delay in filing the complaint, the respondent argues that the complainant has provided a plausible explanation for the delay. They contend that the complainant was subjected to continuous harassment and abuse, which made her hesitant to come forward with her grievances immediately. Moreover, they argue that the delay does not undermine the credibility of the allegations, as the complainant’s fear of reprisal and societal pressure may have contributed to the delay. The respondent disputes the appellant’s interpretation of the medical evidence and the severity of the injuries sustained by the complainant. They assert that while the injuries may have been classified as minor, they were still the result of a violent assault and should be taken seriously by the court. The respondent challenges the appellant’s assertion of respectability, arguing that the appellant and his family members have a history of abusive behaviour towards the complainant. They contend that the appellant’s professional standing should not exempt him from accountability for his actions. The respondent maintains that the involvement of family members in the alleged offences is supported by the complainant’s testimony and other corroborating evidence. They argue that family members played an active role in instigating and perpetrating the harassment and violence against the complainant. Finally, the respondent opposes the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the risk of interference with the ongoing investigation. They argue that granting anticipatory bail would undermine the administration of justice and the complainant’s right to seek redress for the harm she has suffered. These contentions reflect the respondent’s position on the case and their arguments in opposition to the appellant’s claims.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court began by summarising the factual background of the case. It outlined the complainant’s allegations of dowry harassment and attempted murder against her husband (accused No.1) and his family members (petitioners 2 to 6). The court noted the specific instances of alleged violence and harassment detailed by the complainant, as well as the delay between the incident and the filing of the complaint.

The court then examined the contentions presented by the appellant. It considered the appellant’s assertions regarding the false and retaliatory nature of the complaint, the delay in filing the complaint, the interpretation of the medical evidence, the character and professional standing of the appellants, the implication of family members, and the request for anticipatory bail.

After analysing the appellant’s arguments, the court reviewed the respondent’s counter arguments. It considered the respondent’s position on the credibility of the complainant’s allegations, the explanation for the delay in filing the complaint, the severity of the injuries based on medical evidence, the character of the appellant and his family members, the involvement of family members in the alleged offences, and the opposition to anticipatory bail.

Moving on to the legal analysis, the court examined the relevant legal provisions, including sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to dowry harassment, attempted murder, and other offences, as well as sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) pertaining to anticipatory bail.

The court then deliberated on the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail. It weighed the seriousness of the charges, the risk of interference with the investigation, and the likelihood of the appellant absconding or tampering with evidence against the appellants’ personal circumstances and the potential need for protection from arrest.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented and the evidence on record, the court rendered its judgement. It allowed the criminal petition and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants, subject to certain conditions. The court imposed conditions including surrender before the Investigating Officer, execution of a personal bond, cooperation with the investigation, and prohibition from leaving the jurisdiction without prior permission.

In its judgement, the court provided reasoning for its decision, addressing the issues raised by both parties and explaining the basis for granting anticipatory bail. The court emphasised the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice and concluded that the conditions imposed would adequately safeguard the interests of the prosecution while ensuring the protection of the appellants’ rights.

The court concluded by issuing a final order granting anticipatory bail to the appellants in light of the circumstances of the case and the arguments presented by both parties. It directed the appellants to comply with the specified conditions and to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

 

Click here to view judgement

0

Delhi HC Limited Superintendence Role, No Fact Re-evaluation in Eviction Case

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , ,

Case Title: Hardial Singh (Deceased Through LRs) v. Vivek Gupta

Case Number: RC.REV. 339/2016

Dated On: Judgement reserved on May 14, 2024, and pronounced on May 22, 2024

Quorum: Justice Girish Kathpalia

 FACTS OF THE CASE

The case involves a petitioner named Hardial Singh, represented through his legal representatives, and a respondent named Vivek Gupta. Hardial Singh is the tenant, while Vivek Gupta is the landlord. The dispute centres around two ground floor shops located in Model Town, Delhi, referred to as the subject premises. Vivek Gupta claims ownership of these premises. The subject premises were originally owned by Gupta’s mother, Smt. Nirmala Gupta. Upon her demise, a partition suit was initiated between Vivek Gupta and his brother, Dr. Pradeep Gupta. The partition suit concluded with a settlement agreement, allocating the subject premises to Vivek Gupta’s share and a neighbouring shop to his brother.  Vivek Gupta filed an eviction petition against Hardial Singh, asserting a bona fide need for the subject premises to establish an IT consultancy firm. Hardial Singh contested the eviction petition, challenging the genuineness of Gupta’s need for the premises. Singh questioned Gupta’s ownership of adjacent premises and his residential status vis-à-vis his workplace location. The matter was brought before the Rent Controller, where both parties presented their arguments and evidence. The Rent Controller eventually dismissed Singh’s application for leave to contest, prompting Singh to challenge the decision before the High Court.

ISSUES 

  1. Whether Vivek Gupta genuinely requires the subject premises for his IT consultancy firm, as stated in the eviction petition, or if there are alternative motives behind the eviction.
  2. Clarification of the ownership status of the subject premises following the partition suit between Vivek Gupta and his brother, Dr. Pradeep Gupta, and its impact on the eviction proceedings.
  3. Determination of Hardial Singh’s rights as a tenant and his entitlement to contest the eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
  4. Assessment of whether the eviction proceedings comply with legal procedures and principles of fairness as per the Delhi Rent Control Act.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act: This provision relates to the powers of the High Court to review orders for possession of tenanted premises passed by the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
  2. Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act: This section pertains to the grounds for eviction of a tenant, specifically in cases where the landlord requires the premises for his own use.
  3. Relevant Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Sections: References are made to relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Code for procedural matters.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia and his team, contests the assertion made by the respondent landlord, Vivek Gupta, regarding the necessity of the subject premises for starting an IT consultancy firm. They argue that the respondent’s claim lacks merit as alternative premises are available to him. This contention forms the crux of their defence against the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. In furtherance of their defence, the appellant suggests potential irregularities surrounding the partition suit and subsequent settlement, which resulted in the respondent’s claim to the subject premises. They raise doubts about the authenticity of the partition decree obtained by the respondent, implying potential manipulation or fraudulent activity in securing ownership rights to the subject premises. Another key contention put forth by the appellant is the dispute over the respondent’s claimed residency in Noida and its relevance to the eviction proceedings. They challenge the respondent’s assertion of residing in Noida, highlighting the presence of metro connectivity between Model Town and Noida. By doing so, they seek to undermine the significance of travel inconvenience as a valid reason for the respondent’s alleged need for the subject premises. The appellant further argues that the respondent has access to other suitable premises for his consultancy firm, including vacant shops nearby. By emphasising the existence of viable alternative options, they aim to discredit the respondent’s claim of exclusive reliance on the subject premises for his business endeavours.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani and his team, asserts the genuine necessity of the subject premises for initiating an IT consultancy firm. They emphasise the respondent’s professional background and intentions to establish a business, underscoring the importance of the subject premises for this purpose. The respondent’s counsel argues that the requirement is bona fide and essential for the respondent’s career aspirations, providing a robust defence against the appellant’s challenge to the eviction proceedings. In response to the appellant’s contention regarding the validity of the partition decree, the respondent’s counsel reaffirms the legitimacy of the settlement reached through mediation. They counter the appellant’s insinuations of manipulation or fraud, citing the court-approved settlement agreement as evidence of the lawful transfer of ownership rights to the subject premises. This argument aims to dispel any doubts surrounding the legality of the partition decree and establish the respondent’s rightful claim to the premises. The respondent’s legal team refutes the appellant’s assertion regarding travel convenience and residency, maintaining the respondent’s need for the subject premises despite potential metro connectivity between Model Town and Noida. They argue that the respondent’s decision to establish his consultancy firm in Model Town is a deliberate choice driven by professional considerations and personal circumstances, which should be respected in the context of the eviction proceedings. Additionally, the respondent’s counsel justifies the selection of the subject premises for the consultancy firm, citing strategic and practical reasons such as proximity to existing business networks and potential client base. They argue that the premises offer distinct advantages for the proposed business venture, reinforcing the respondent’s genuine need for the subject premises and bolstering their defence against the appellant’s challenges.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The case involves a dispute between the petitioner, representing the deceased tenant’s interests, and the respondent, the landlord, regarding the eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondent claims ownership of the premises inherited through a partition settlement, intending to utilise them for an IT consultancy firm. After considering the arguments from both sides, the court is tasked with determining the validity of the respondent’s eviction claim and the petitioner’s challenge to it.

The petitioner, through their senior advocate Mr. A.P.S. Ahluwalia, raises several challenges to the respondent’s eviction petition. These challenges primarily focus on disputing the bona fides of the respondent’s requirement for the subject premises. The petitioner argues against the necessity of eviction, citing factors such as the existence of vacant adjacent premises, the respondent’s residency in Noida, and the alleged lack of urgency in initiating the proposed business venture. Additionally, the petitioner contests the validity of the partition settlement, implying collusion and manipulation.

In response, the respondent, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani and his team, presents a robust defence of their eviction claim. They emphasise the genuine need for the subject premises to establish an IT consultancy firm, underscoring the respondent’s professional qualifications and intentions. The respondent’s legal team refutes the petitioner’s challenges, asserting the legality of the partition settlement and the legitimacy of their requirement for the premises, despite the petitioner’s objections regarding travel convenience and alternative accommodations.

The court meticulously examines the arguments presented by both parties, taking into account the legal provisions under the Delhi Rent Control Act and relevant case law. It emphasises the need to balance the rights of landlords and tenants, particularly in cases involving eviction claims under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The court scrutinises the validity of the partition settlement, ultimately affirming its legality and recognizing the respondent’s rightful ownership of the subject premises.

After thorough deliberation, the court upholds the respondent’s eviction petition, dismissing the petitioner’s challenges and affirming the validity of the eviction order. It finds no merit in the petitioner’s contentions regarding the respondent’s requirement for the premises or the legality of the partition settlement. The court’s judgement underscores the respondent’s genuine need for the subject premises and affirms their right to eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, thereby concluding the dispute in favour of the respondent.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

0

Delhi HC Dismisses Petition, Validates Eviction Due to Procedural Errors and Bona Fide Requirement

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , ,

Case title : Yatti Dawar and Ors. vs. Ashok Kr. Gupta

Case No. RC.REV. 120/2022 & CM APPL.25011/2022.

Dated on: Reserved on May 17, 2024, and pronounced on May 22, 2024.

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Ashok Kr. Gupta owns shop no. 1126/2, Kucha Natwa, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, through a registered sale deed dated 23.08.2007. The shop was rented to Sh. Sunil Dawar, who passed away on 07.04.2018. His legal heirs, including petitioner no.1 (Yatti Dawar) and petitioners no.2-4, continued to occupy the premises. Ashok Kr. Gupta filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming he needed the premises for his unemployed son, Shobhit Gupta, to start a business of readymade ladies garments. He stated the premises were ideally located in a market known for wholesale and retail business of clothes and mentioned no suitable alternate accommodation. Petitioners no.2-4 filed an application under Section 25B(5) seeking leave to contest the eviction but did not provide specific grounds and lacked the required supporting affidavit. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed their application and passed an eviction order against all petitioners since petitioner no.1 did not file any application for leave to contest. Petitioners claimed petitioner no.1 had filed an application for leave to contest, which was allegedly removed from the court record, but this application was identical to the insufficient application of petitioners no.2-4. Petitioners argued the eviction petition was not bona fide, asserting Shobhit Gupta was already engaged in the steel business. The respondent argued that the petitioners’ applications were without merit and reiterated the bona fide need for the premises for Shobhit Gupta’s new business, emphasising no legal restriction on changing business types.

ISSUES

  1. Whether Ashok Kr. Gupta’s claim that he needs the subject premises for his son Shobhit Gupta to start a new business of readymade ladies garments is genuine and constitutes a bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
  2. Whether the applications for leave to contest the eviction filed by petitioners no.2-4 were procedurally adequate, given that they did not specify any grounds for contesting the eviction and lacked the required supporting affidavit.
  3. Whether petitioner no.1’s application for leave to contest was filed and subsequently removed from the court’s record, as claimed by the petitioners, and the implications of this allegation on the eviction proceedings.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
    • Section 14(1)(e): Provides grounds for eviction of a tenant by the landlord. It allows eviction if the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, or for any purpose for which the premises were let out.
    • Section 25B(5): Special procedure for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. This section outlines the procedure for a tenant to seek leave to contest an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e). The tenant must file an affidavit disclosing the grounds on which they seek to contest the eviction.
    • Section 25B(8): Provides the right to appeal. This section allows a tenant to appeal against an order passed by the Controller under Section 25B.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. Himalaya Gupta, Counsel of the appellant submitted that the case revolves around procedural irregularities and challenges to the bona fide requirement claimed by the respondent. Firstly, the appellant contends that there was a procedural error in the filing of the application for leave to contest. They argue that the application submitted by petitioners no.2-4 lacked specific grounds for contesting the eviction and did not include the necessary supporting affidavit as required by law. However, they assert that this deficiency stemmed from the negligence of their legal representative rather than any intentional oversight on their part. Additionally, the appellant raises the issue of a missing application allegedly filed by petitioner no.1 for leave to contest. They claim that despite filing the application, it was somehow removed from the court’s record. The appellant suggests that this missing application, if considered, could potentially provide additional grounds for contesting the eviction.

Furthermore, the appellant questions the bona fide requirement asserted by the respondent for the premises in question. They argue that the respondent’s claim that the premises are needed for his son, Shobhit Gupta, to start a new business of readymade ladies garments lacks credibility. Specifically, the appellant points out that Shobhit Gupta is already engaged in the steel business, which raises doubts about the genuine need for the premises for a new business venture. Additionally, the appellant implies that the eviction petition may have been filed opportunistically following the death of the original tenant, Sh. Sunil Dawar. They suggest that the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement may be driven by ulterior motives rather than a genuine necessity for the premises. These contentions collectively form the basis of the appellant’s argument against the eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent and seek a reconsideration of the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondent, represented by Mr. Nitin Ahlawat and Mr. Kshitiz Ahlawat, Advocates, presents several contentions in response to the appellant’s claims. Firstly, they assert that the applications for leave to contest the eviction filed by petitioners no.2-4 were without merit, a point even acknowledged by the appellant’s counsel. The respondent argues that these applications lacked specific grounds for contesting the eviction and did not adhere to the procedural requirements outlined by law. Therefore, they contend that no further consideration is warranted regarding the procedural adequacy of these applications.

Regarding the missing application allegedly filed by petitioner no.1 for leave to contest, the respondent dismisses the appellant’s claim, arguing that there is no substantive evidence to support this assertion. They suggest that the alleged removal of the application from the court’s record lacks credibility and appears to be a diversionary tactic by the appellant. Thus, they maintain that the missing application should not factor into the court’s decision-making process.

Moreover, the respondent defends their claim of a bona fide requirement for the premises. They emphasise that the premises are genuinely needed for their son, Shobhit Gupta, to establish a new business of readymade ladies garments. They refute the appellant’s argument regarding Shobhit Gupta’s existing engagement in the steel business, asserting that there is no legal restriction preventing individuals from diversifying their business interests. Therefore, they assert that the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement remains valid and should be upheld by the court.

In conclusion, the respondent reaffirms the legitimacy of their eviction petition and the bona fide requirement asserted therein. They argue that the appellant’s contentions regarding procedural irregularities and the bona fide requirement lack merit and should not affect the outcome of the case.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

 After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the court proceeded with its analysis of the case. The court first addressed the procedural irregularities regarding the applications for leave to contest the eviction filed by the appellants. It noted that these applications, filed by petitioners no.2-4, lacked specific grounds for contesting the eviction and did not include the required supporting affidavit. The court acknowledged the appellant’s claim that these deficiencies were due to the negligence of their legal representative. However, it emphasised that procedural requirements must be adhered to, and the absence of grounds for contesting the eviction hindered the court’s ability to grant leave to contest.

Regarding the alleged missing application filed by petitioner no.1 for leave to contest, the court found the appellant’s claim lacking substantive evidence. It deemed the alleged removal of the application from the court’s record as not credible, stating that there was no material to support this assertion. Therefore, the court did not consider the missing application as a valid factor in its decision-making process.

Moving on to the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement for the premises, the court analysed the circumstances presented. It observed that the respondent genuinely required the premises for their son, Shobhit Gupta, to establish a new business of readymade ladies garments. Despite the appellant’s argument regarding Shobhit Gupta’s existing engagement in the steel business, the court noted that there was no legal impediment preventing individuals from diversifying their business interests. Thus, the court found the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement to be valid and upheld.

Based on its analysis of the case, the court concluded that the procedural irregularities in the appellant’s applications for leave to contest and the lack of substantive evidence regarding the missing application for leave to contest filed by petitioner no.1 did not warrant a reconsideration of the eviction order. Additionally, the court found the respondent’s claim of a bona fide requirement for the premises to be genuine and upheld it. Therefore, the court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appellant’s petition, along with any pending applications.

The court upheld the impugned order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and dismissed the appellant’s petition, along with any pending applications. The judgement was pronounced on May 22, 2024.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement

 

1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 18