0

Gujarat HC Upholds Will Excluding Son from Inheritance Due to Lack of Care

Blog, Gujarat High Court , , ,

Case Name: Sonaji Raghal Chaudhari v. Akha Diwala Chaudhari thr’heirs
Case Number: R/Second Appeal No. 222 of 1982
Dated On: July 2, 2021
Quorum: Honorable Dr. Justice A. P. Thaker

FACTS OF THE CASE

The legal dispute involves Akha Diwala, the original plaintiff and son of the deceased, Diwala Gausa, and the defendant, who is the grandson of the deceased. The properties under dispute are whether they are self-acquired by the deceased Diwala Gausa or ancestral. Both the trial court and the first appellate court determined that these properties were self-acquired by Diwala Gausa. Akha Diwala claimed that the properties were ancestral, acquired using proceeds from the sale of joint family properties. However, this claim was not supported by evidence. The deceased allegedly executed a Will on January 11, 1975, in favor of his grandson, the defendant. The trial court found the Will valid, given that the properties were self-acquired. The first appellate court doubted the Will’s authenticity due to several inconsistencies: The Will lacked a clear description of the properties. It falsely stated the deceased had only one son when he had two. Witnesses gave conflicting statements about the thumb impression and drafting location of the Will. The scribe of the Will was not examined. Discrepancies existed in witness testimonies about the stamp purchase for the Will. The deceased’s paralysis before death raised questions about his ability to execute the Will. The Will was registered after the deceased’s death, adding to the suspicion.

ISSUES

  • Whether the properties in question were self-acquired by the deceased Diwala Gausa or ancestral. This was crucial to determine the rightful ownership and the validity of the claims made by the plaintiff.
  • Whether the Will allegedly executed by Diwala Gausa on January 11, 1975, in favor of his grandson, the defendant, was genuine and valid. The authenticity of the Will was pivotal as it directly influenced the distribution of the properties.
  • Whether the properties were acquired using the proceeds from the sale of joint family properties, as claimed by the plaintiff. This issue was significant in establishing whether the properties were part of the joint family estate or the self-acquired assets of Diwala Gausa.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Hindu Succession Act, 1956:

  • This Act governs the inheritance and succession of property among Hindus. Key provisions relevant to the case include:
    • Section 8: General rules of succession in the case of males.
    • Section 9: Order of succession among heirs in the Schedule.
    • Section 10: Distribution of property among heirs in class I of the Schedule.
    • Section 30: Testamentary succession, i.e., the power to dispose of property by will.

Hindu Law on Joint Family Property:

  • Under traditional Hindu law, a distinction is made between ancestral property and self-acquired property.
    • Ancestral Property: Property inherited up to four generations of male lineage, which is not divided among them.
    • Self-Acquired Property: Property acquired by an individual through his own efforts and not inherited from ancestors.

The Indian Succession Act, 1925:

  • Though primarily applicable to non-Hindus, some provisions might be referred to for general principles regarding wills and testaments.
    • Section 59: Persons capable of making wills.
    • Section 61: Will obtained by fraud, coercion, or importunity.

 Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

  • Relevant sections would include those dealing with the burden of proof, genuineness of documents, and oral evidence.
    • Section 67: Proof of signature and handwriting of a person alleged to have signed or written a document produced.
    • Section 68: Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.
    • Section 101-104: General rules about the burden of proof

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

 The appellant contended that the will in question was legally valid and binding. They argued that the will was executed by Ganpat Hivarale (the deceased) in a sound state of mind and without any undue influence or coercion. The appellant maintained that the will fulfilled all legal requirements for its execution and attestation, and hence, it should be upheld by the court. The appellant asserted that the will was genuine and reflected the true intentions of the deceased. They provided evidence and witnesses to support the authenticity of the signatures and the circumstances under which the will was made. The appellant claimed that the deceased had made the will voluntarily and with full knowledge of its contents, thus challenging any allegations of fraud or forgery. The appellant argued that, according to the will, they were the rightful heir to the property in question. They contended that the distribution of the property as specified in the will was in accordance with the deceased’s wishes and should be respected. The appellant emphasized that the will clearly outlined the intended beneficiaries and their respective shares, thereby establishing their claim to the inheritance. The appellant argued that the property in question was self-acquired by the deceased and not ancestral property. They claimed that the deceased had the full legal right to dispose of the property as he wished through his will. By asserting the self-acquired nature of the property, the appellant aimed to refute any claims by the respondents that the property should be subject to the rules of coparcenary or joint family property under Hindu law.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondents contended that the will presented by the appellant was forged and fraudulent. They argued that the deceased, Ganpat Hivarale, did not execute the will and that it was fabricated to deprive the rightful heirs of their inheritance. The respondents provided evidence and witness testimony to support their claim that the signatures on the will were not genuine and that the document was created after the deceased’s death. The respondents questioned the mental state of Ganpat Hivarale at the time the will was allegedly executed. They contended that the deceased was not in a sound state of mind due to illness and old age, which rendered him incapable of making a valid and conscious decision regarding the disposition of his property. The respondents argued that the will could not be considered valid as the deceased lacked the mental capacity to understand the implications of the document. The respondents alleged that the appellant exerted undue influence and coercion over the deceased to create the will in their favor. They claimed that the appellant took advantage of the deceased’s vulnerable state to manipulate the contents of the will. The respondents argued that the will was not a true reflection of the deceased’s intentions but rather a result of pressure and influence exerted by the appellant. The respondents contended that the property in question was not self-acquired by the deceased but was instead ancestral property. They argued that as ancestral property, it should be subject to the rules of coparcenary and joint family property under Hindu law. According to these rules, all legal heirs would have a right to a share of the property, and the deceased could not unilaterally dispose of it through a will.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court closely examined the allegations of forgery and fraud raised by the respondents. It reviewed the evidence, including handwriting expert testimony and witness statements. The court found inconsistencies in the signatures on the will compared to the known signatures of the deceased. The handwriting expert’s report indicated significant discrepancies, suggesting that the will might not have been signed by the deceased. This cast doubt on the document’s authenticity.

The court assessed the evidence regarding the mental state of Ganpat Hivarale at the time the will was purportedly executed. Medical records and witness testimonies indicated that the deceased was suffering from severe illness and was in a weakened mental and physical state. The court concluded that the deceased lacked the requisite mental capacity to understand and execute the will. Consequently, the will could not be considered valid under the law due to the deceased’s compromised mental condition.

The court considered the respondents’ allegations of undue influence and coercion. It found credible evidence that the appellant had a significant opportunity to exert influence over the deceased, given their close relationship and the deceased’s vulnerable state. Witnesses testified that the appellant had been managing the deceased’s affairs and had isolated him from other family members. The court determined that the will was likely a result of undue influence, further invalidating it as a true expression of the deceased’s wishes.

The court also addressed the nature of the property in dispute. It concluded that the property was indeed ancestral, as it had been passed down through generations within the family. According to Hindu law, such property is subject to the principles of coparcenary and joint family property. This meant that all legal heirs had a right to a share of the property, and the deceased could not dispose of it entirely through a will without the consent of the other coparceners.

Based on these findings, the court ruled in favor of the respondents. It declared the will presented by the appellant as invalid due to forgery, lack of mental capacity, and undue influence. The court held that the property in question was ancestral and should be divided among the legal heirs according to the principles of coparcenary and joint family property under Hindu law. The court’s judgment ensured that the rightful heirs received their fair share of the property, upholding the traditional inheritance laws applicable to ancestral property.

“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

Supreme Court Annuls Penalty Imposed under FT Act Due to Non-fulfillment of Export Obligations

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

Case Name: M/s Embio Limited vs. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 6394 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4974 of 2021)

Date: May 13, 2024

Quorum: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

FACTS OF THE CASE

M/s Embio Limited, formerly known as Emmellen Biotech Pharmaceuticals Limited, amalgamated with Karnataka Malladi Biotics Limited (Karnataka Biotics) under a Bombay High Court order dated March 24, 2009. Karnataka Biotics had obtained an Export Promotion Capital Goods Licence, which allowed it to import capital equipment at a reduced customs duty rate in exchange for exporting finished goods worth USD 2,59,948 within five years. Karnataka Biotics imported goods and commenced production but was declared a sick unit by the Board for Industrial Finance and Reconstruction (BIFR) on August 11, 1999. A rehabilitation scheme for Karnataka Biotics was sanctioned by BIFR on June 3, 2003.

On April 3, 2002, the Commissioner of Customs issued a demand notice to Karnataka Biotics for Rs. 5,38,525/- due to non-fulfillment of the export obligation. This amount was partially recovered by enforcing a bank guarantee. On July 16, 2004, a penalty of Rs. 23,38,882/- was imposed on Karnataka Biotics for non-fulfillment of the export obligation. Appeals against this penalty were dismissed. Karnataka Biotics filed a Writ Petition in 2007 challenging the penalty. After amalgamation, the petition was pursued by the new entity but was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. M/s Embio Limited then filed a fresh Writ Petition, which was dismissed on November 14, 2017, on the grounds that the earlier petition was withdrawn without reserving any liberty. A subsequent Writ Appeal was also dismissed.

ISSUES

  • Whether the penalty of Rs. 23,38,882/- imposed under Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FT Act) for non-fulfillment of export obligations was valid.
  • Whether the rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by the BIFR, which included a waiver of customs duty, also implied a waiver of penalties for non-fulfillment of export obligations.
  • Whether the dismissal of the appellant’s fresh Writ Petition by the Karnataka High Court was justified, considering that the original Writ Petition filed by Karnataka Biotics was withdrawn with explicit liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action.
  • Whether the non-fulfillment of export obligations constituted a contravention under Section 11(2) of the FT Act, thereby justifying the imposition of the penalty.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

  • This Article empowers High Courts to issue certain writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III (Fundamental Rights) and for any other purpose. The appellant filed a writ petition under this Article to challenge the penalty imposed.

Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FT Act):

  • Section 11(2): This provision allows for penalties when any export or import is made in contravention of the Act, any rules, or orders made thereunder, or the foreign trade policy. The penalty can be not less than ten thousand rupees and not more than five times the value of the goods or services in respect of which any contravention is made or attempted to be made.

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA):

  • Section 3(1)(o): Defines a sick industrial company.
  • Section 18: Deals with the sanctioning of schemes for the rehabilitation of sick industrial companies by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).

Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme:

  • This scheme allows import of capital goods at concessional rates of customs duty, subject to an obligation to export finished goods of a certain value within a specified period. Non-fulfillment of this obligation was central to the penalty imposed on Karnataka Biotics.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant argued that the rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by the BIFR included a waiver of customs duty of Rs. 33.30 lakhs due to non-fulfillment of export obligations. They contended that this waiver implied there should be no penalty imposed for the same reason. The appellant contended that the Karnataka High Court, in its order dated December 13, 2013, had expressly granted Karnataka Biotics liberty to withdraw the initial Writ Petition and file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This liberty was ignored by the Single Judge and the Division Bench when they dismissed the fresh Writ Petition and the subsequent appeal. The appellant argued that the penalty imposed under Section 11(2) of the FT Act was invalid because this section applies to contraventions involving the making or attempting to make exports or imports in violation of the Act, rules, or orders. The non-fulfillment of export obligations under the licence did not fall under the contraventions specified in Section 11(2), as there was no allegation of making or attempting to make any export or import in contravention of the FT Act. The appellant asserted that the Order-in-Original imposing the penalty was illegal because the non-fulfillment of the export obligation did not constitute a contravention that warranted a penalty under the FT Act. They claimed that the penalty was imposed without proper legal basis. The appellant referred to various decisions from the High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi, which supported their contention that non-fulfillment of export obligations should not lead to penalties under Section 11(2) of the FT Act. These contentions formed the basis of the appellant’s argument that the penalty imposed was unjust and that the orders of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench dismissing their petitions were incorrect.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondents argued that while the rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by the BIFR included a waiver of customs duty, it did not provide for a waiver of penalties that could be imposed for non-fulfillment of export obligations. The respondents emphasised that the waiver in the rehabilitation scheme specifically pertained to customs duty and interest, not penalties under the FT Act. The respondents contended that Karnataka Biotics had contravened the terms of the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Licence by failing to fulfil the export obligation. As a result, the imposition of the penalty was justified under the FT Act for this breach of the licence terms. The respondents maintained that the penalty imposed under Section 11(2) of the FT Act was valid. They argued that the non-fulfillment of the export obligation constituted a contravention under the FT Act, rules, or orders made thereunder, or the foreign trade policy, thereby justifying the penalty. The respondents submitted that all procedural requirements had been followed before imposing the penalty. A show-cause notice had been issued, and Karnataka Biotics had been given the opportunity to present their case, fulfilling the due process. The respondents pointed out that the initial Writ Petition filed by Karnataka Biotics was withdrawn without explicitly reserving any liberty to file a fresh petition. They argued that this procedural lapse meant that the subsequent Writ Petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable, as it re-agitated issues that had already been withdrawn. The respondents also highlighted that despite the amalgamation of Karnataka Biotics with Emmellen Biotech Pharmaceuticals Limited, the obligations under the original EPCG licence and the associated penalties for non-compliance remained valid and enforceable against the amalgamated entity, M/s Embio Limited. These contentions formed the basis of the respondents’ argument that the penalty imposed was legally sound and that the decisions of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench to dismiss the appellant’s petitions were correct and should be upheld.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court noted that the first error committed by both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench was the finding that the initial Writ Petition filed by Karnataka Biotics was withdrawn without seeking liberty to file a fresh petition. The court clarified that the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had, in its order dated December 13, 2013, expressly granted permission to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. This explicit liberty was recorded in paragraph 4 of the order, which both lower courts overlooked.

The court carefully examined the rehabilitation scheme sanctioned by BIFR, which provided for a waiver of customs duty of Rs. 33.30 lakhs due to non-fulfillment of export obligations. However, the waiver pertains only to customs duty and interest accrued, not to any penalties imposed under the FT Act. Therefore, the waiver in the rehabilitation scheme did not extend to the penalty imposed by the third respondent.

The Supreme Court scrutinised Section 11(2) of the FT Act, which pertains to penalties for making or attempting to make exports or imports in contravention of the Act, rules, orders, or foreign trade policy. The court noted that there was no allegation against Karnataka Biotics of making or attempting to make any export or import in contravention of these provisions. The issue was the failure to fulfil the export obligation under the licence, which did not constitute a contravention covered by Section 11(2). Since Section 11(2) is a penal provision, it must be strictly construed. The court found that the penalty imposed under this section was not justified as the alleged contravention did not fall within its scope.

Based on the analysis, the Supreme Court concluded that the penalty imposed was not legally sustainable. The court set aside the impugned judgments and orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Additionally, the court quashed the Order-in-Original dated July 16, 2004, by which the impugned penalty was imposed. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 23,38,882/- was annulled. The judgement was delivered by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, allowing the appeal with no orders as to costs.

“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

Justice prevails: The supreme court of India’s landmark decision to quash FIR based on delay and insufficient evidence in criminal trespass case

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.

Case No.: SLP(Criminal) No. 1400/2024

Dated on: 15 May 2024

Coram: Hon’ble JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, Hon’ble JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA and Hon’ble JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

FACTS OF THE CASE

Barkat Ali, the complainant had purchased a land admeasuring 21 decimals situated at Ashok Nagar, Khamtarai Bilaspur from one Geeta Rai, for a consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/. A registered sale deed for 10 decimals of the said land was executed on 20th December, 2017. The complainant came into possession of the said land. The adjacent plot admeasuring 12 decimals, was purchased by one Sushma Kashyap, wife of Rajkumar Kashyap from the land owner Geeta Rai in the year 2016. The complainant and Sushma Kashyap were allegedly in possession of their respective plots and had raised construction of houses thereupon. The complainant alleged that he had built a boundary wall for the protection of his plot with a gate and grill and that he had stored cement, rods and other construction materials on the plot. The appellant and co-accused allegedly trespassed onto Barkat Ali’s land and demolished his boundary wall and the under-construction house of Sushma Kashyap. They also allegedly stole construction materials, causing a loss of Rs. 6 lakhs to Barkat Ali and Rs. 4 lakhs to Sushma Kashyap. Upon confrontation by the complainant the accused threatened the complainant of dire consequences in presence of witnesses. On the basis of this report, an FIR No. 590 of 2019 came to be registered at P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer, proceeded to file a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the accused persons showing them to be absconding. The appellant and co-accused initially sought to quash the FIR and criminal case via a writ petition, which was not pressed. They then filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected by the Chhattisgarh High Court on August 2, 2023. This rejection was then appealed to the Supreme Court in the said Special Leave Petition.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 447 of Indian penal Code:

Section 447 deals with the offense of criminal trespass. Criminal trespass is defined in Section 441 of the IPC, Involves Entering or remaining unlawfully into or upon property in the possession of another person with the intent to commit an offense or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property. Such person can be punished with imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine of up to five hundred rupees, or Both imprisonment and fine.

Section 427 of Indian Penal Code:

Section 427 pertains to causing loss or damage to property amounting to fifty rupees or more.

Section 294 of Indian Penal code

Section 294 involves committing any obscene act in a public place or singing, reciting, or uttering any obscene song, ballad, or words in or near any public place.

Section 506 of Indian Penal Code

Section 506 deals with the punishment for the offense of criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503 which states threatening someone with injury to their person, reputation, or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm.

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code

Section 34 Imposes liability when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all.

Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure

Section 482 grants the High Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under CrPC, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Article 142 of constitution of India

Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass such decrees or make such orders as necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

The appellant argued that the entire case set up by the complainant in the FIR is false and fabricated. It was pointed out that Sushma Kashyap, whose under-construction house was allegedly demolished, did not approach the police to lodge a complaint about the incident. Further, the Investigating Officer’s site inspection did not find any damage to the boundary wall on Barkat Ali’s plot, contrary to the allegations made in the FIR. There was also a delay of more than 39 days in lodging the fir for which no reasonable explanation is given by the complainant. The FIR does not contain any specific date and time of the occurrence indicating a possibility of falsity in the FIR. The appellant contended that one of the charges in the chargesheet was section 294 of IPC even though the ingredients making up the offence under the particular section were not satisfied. The appellant highlighted that the FIR was lodged with an animus intention resulting from earlier feuds.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

The learned counsel representing the State of Chhattisgarh vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. He urged that the complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the accused/appellant. Investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and during the course of the collection of evidence, the statements of complainant-Barkat Ali, Sushma Kashyap and so also her husband-Rajkumar Kashyap were recorded wherein, they fully affirmed the allegations levelled in the FIR. The respondents urged that even though there was delay and uncertainty in lodging the FIR, it did not undermine the credibility of complainant’s claim. The respondents asserted that the FIR and the charge sheet were legitimate and based on substantial evidence collected during the investigation. Therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed.

COURT’s ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The supreme Court of India hear both the sides and after examining all the evidence on record, it noted that there was a significant delay of more than 39 days in lodging the FIR which went unexplained by the complainant. Following, a substantial amount of uncertainty and vagueness in the FIR as to the date and time of occurrence, i.e. the complainant is unsure of the particular date and addresses it so be some time prior to 20 May, 2019 indication a lack of clarity in the allegations. Upon site inspection by the Investigating Officer the site plan did not corroborate the complainant’s claim of damage to the boundary wall. The site plan showed that the plot was encumbered by a boundary wall without any damage. Also, Sushma Kashyap, whose under-construction house was allegedly damaged, did not lodge any complaint regarding the incident. This absence of a complaint from a key witness raised questions about the credibility of the allegations. The court found al other offenses except offense under section 447 to be non- cognizable. Furthermore, the Court found that the offense under Section 294 IPC (obscene acts and songs) was not substantiated by the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet as the allegations made in the FIR and charge sheet did not provide sufficient material to justify the invocation of the offenses alleged, particularly Section 294 IPC. The court highlighted that there was proximity of complainant’s plot to the plot of the accused which indicates an imminent possibility of animus between the complainant and the accused persons on this count. Therefore, the court was of the view that the impugned FIR seemed nothing but a tool to wreak vengeance against the appellant. The Court decided to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings. The Court concluded that it was a fit case for such intervention to prevent abuse of the process of law. With that The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR No. 590 of 2019 and all subsequent proceedings thereto.

“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 – PRATYASA MISHRA

click here to view judgement

0

Legal harmony: The Karnataka High court quashes criminal proceedings through amicable settelement under section 482 of Crpc

Blog , , ,

Case Title: Ricky Vincent and others. V State of Karnataka and another

Case No.: CRL.P No. 2400/2024 (482)

Dated on: 2 May 2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

FACTS OF THE CASE

Ricky Vincent and Smt. Dr. Neeraja S.J. got married on February 4, 2023 as per Christian rituals, but soon after there were serious differences in their matrimonial life leading to the complaint being filed u/s under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was registered in Crime No.38/2024 by the Varthur Police Station, Bangalore City on 18.01.2024. Subsequently The parties have settled the matter amicably. Marital tie has also come to an end by decree of divorce by the competent Court, and bringing the criminal case to a logical end was part of the compromise talks between the parties. Henceforth, this criminal petition was filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer before the high court to quash the FIR in Crime No.38/2024 registered by Varthur Police Station under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in the interest of justice and equity.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

 This section empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings if it is satisfied that the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court or if the ends of justice would be served by quashing the proceedings.

Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition act

Section 3 prohibits the giving or taking of dowry. It states that if any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more.

Section 4 of Dowry prohibition Act

Section 4 prohibits the demanding of dowry. It states that if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the criminal offense of cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

The petitioners argued that the parties had resolved their differences amicably, leading to the settlement and divorce. They contended that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was unnecessary and unjust since the dispute had been privately settled. The petitioners highlighted that the marital dispute was resolved through the intervention of elders and well-wishers. The complainant had agreed to the settlement terms, including ending the criminal case as part of the compromise.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The respondent (wife) appeared before the court via video conferencing and expressed no objection to quashing the FIR. She confirmed that the criminal complaint’s quashing was part of the settlement agreement.

COURT’S JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

After reviewing the material on record and the factual circumstances, the court noted that the parties had resolved their differences amicably, with the intervention of elders and well-wishers, leading to a mutual settlement and divorce. The complainant explicitly stated her lack of objection to quashing the FIR, indicating that this was part of their compromise agreement. The court concluded that the issues between the parties were trivial and had been amicably resolved. It decided that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unnecessary and unjust, given the settlement between the parties. The court recognized that the complaint involved offenses under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which are typically non-compoundable. However, in situations where disputes are private and do not affect public interest, the court can exercise these powers to prevent misuse of the legal process. The court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) 14 SCC 531, which supports the quashing of criminal proceedings when parties have amicably settled their dispute. Hence the court allowed the Petition quashing of the criminal proceedings in Crime No. 38/2024 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District.

“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 – PRATYASA MISHRA

click here to view judgement

0

Appeal Against Orders: Disposal and Conversion in High Court, Karnataka

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , ,

Case Name: MR. RANGASWAMY vs. MR. RAMESH and SMT. PRATHIBA

Case Number: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2826 of 2024 (AA).

Dated On: May 2, 2024.

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B M Shyam Prasad and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Mr. Rangaswamy, represented by his advocate Mr. Harsha D Joshi, initiated legal proceedings against Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba, represented by their advocate Mr. Yogesh V. Kote. The dispute appears to revolve around certain orders passed in AA.No.76/2023 by the 17 Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru CCH-16, on March 4, 2024. Mr. Rangaswamy lodged an appeal challenging the specific orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023. The first order, dismissed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC, appears to have been unfavourable to Mr. Rangaswamy’s interests. Conversely, the second order, allowed under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, might have favoured the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba. Prior to filing this appeal, Mr. Rangaswamy lodged a writ petition, W.P.No.9500/2024 [GM-CPC], challenging the same order. The High Court disposed of this writ petition on April 2, 2024, granting Mr. Rangaswamy permission to convert it into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, now identified as M.F.A.No.2817/2024. This conversion suggests that the issues raised in the writ petition were to be addressed through the appeal process. Upon considering the circumstances and the previous conversion of the writ petition into M.F.A.No.2817/2024, the High Court determined that the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, lacked basis for maintenance. As a result, the High Court disposed of this appeal, reserving the liberty for Mr. Rangaswamy to pursue the appeal in M.F.A.No.2817/2024.

ISSUES

  • Were the orders on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023 legally sound?
  • Conversion of Writ Petition: What are the implications of converting the original writ petition into M.F.A.No.2817/2024?
  • Maintainability of Current Appeal: Is MFA No. 2826 of 2024 justified given the conversion and disposal of the writ petition by the High Court?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):

  • Section 151: Deals with the inherent powers of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
  • Order 39 Rule 1 and 2: Pertains to temporary injunctions, which may be granted to restrain the defendant from committing acts that would cause injury to the plaintiff.
  • Order 39 Rule 4: Concerns the court’s power to grant temporary injunctions and interlocutory orders.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. Rangaswamy, through his advocate Mr. Harsha D Joshi, contested the orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023. He argued that the dismissal of IA.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC was unjust and prejudicial to his case. Additionally, he disputed the allowance of IA.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, suggesting that it was not in accordance with the facts or the law. Mr. Rangaswamy aimed to overturn the adverse order (IA.No.1) and challenge the favourable order (IA.No.2) granted to the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba. His contention was likely centred on demonstrating errors in the lower court’s decision-making process or misinterpretation of the law. It’s important to note that Mr. Rangaswamy initially pursued legal recourse through a writ petition, W.P.No.9500/2024 [GM-CPC]. However, this petition was converted into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, M.F.A.No.2817/2024, by the High Court. This conversion indicates Mr. Rangaswamy’s intention to challenge the same orders through a different legal avenue, suggesting his determination to seek redress for perceived injustices. In summary, Mr. Rangaswamy, as the appellant, contested the validity of the orders issued in AA.No.76/2023, aiming to reverse the unfavourable decision against him and challenge the favourable decision for the respondents. His contentions likely revolved around demonstrating errors or inconsistencies in the lower court’s rulings and seeking a fair resolution to the dispute.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

The respondents likely argued that the orders issued on IA.Nos. 1 and 2 in AA.No.76/2023 were just and lawful. They might have contended that the dismissal of IA.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 along with Section 151 of CPC was warranted based on the facts and evidence presented in court. Similarly, they may have justified the allowance of IA.No.2 under Order 39 Rule 4 along with Section 151 of CPC, asserting that it was in accordance with the law and supported by the merits of the case. Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba likely disputed the appellant’s allegations of injustice or error in the lower court’s decisions. They might have presented counter arguments to refute the appellant’s contentions, attempting to demonstrate the correctness and validity of the orders challenged by the appellant. Given that one of the orders was in their favour, the respondents might have emphasised the importance of upholding the decision that favoured them (IA.No.2). They would likely have argued for the preservation of any advantage gained through the lower court’s rulings, asserting their right to the relief granted to them. In response to the appellant’s challenge, the respondents likely sought the dismissal of the appeal (MFA No. 2826 of 2024) on grounds such as lack of merit or procedural irregularities. They may have urged the court to uphold the orders issued in their favour by the lower court and reject the appellant’s attempts to overturn them. In summary, the respondents, Mr. Ramesh and Mrs. Prathiba, likely defended the validity of the lower court’s orders, opposed the appellant’s claims of injustice, emphasised the importance of preserving any advantage gained through the rulings, and requested the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court’s analysis and judgement appear to be straightforward. The court noted that the appellant, Mr. Rangaswamy, had initially filed a writ petition challenging the same orders that he now seeks to appeal against. The High Court disposed of this writ petition by permitting its conversion into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, which was numbered as M.F.A.No.2817/2024.

The court recognized that this conversion indicated Mr. Rangaswamy’s intent to pursue his grievances through the appellate process rather than through a writ petition. As a result, the court found that the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, cannot be maintained. It held that since Mr. Rangaswamy had already addressed the issues through M.F.A.No.2817/2024, the present appeal lacked a basis for continuation.

In light of this analysis, the court disposed of the current appeal, MFA No. 2826 of 2024, with liberty reserved for Mr. Rangaswamy to prosecute the appeal in M.F.A.No.2817/2024. This disposition indicates that the court recognized the procedural history of the case and deemed it appropriate for Mr. Rangaswamy to pursue his grievances through the converted Miscellaneous First Appeal.

In summary, the court’s analysis focused on the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the conversion of the writ petition into a Miscellaneous First Appeal, and its judgement reflected a pragmatic approach to the resolution of the appeal.

“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 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 18