0

No Evidence, No Case: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Marital Dispute.  

Blog, Supreme court , , , , ,

Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: November 28, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble J.  C. T. Ravikumar, J.  Sanjay Kumar.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dispute arose from an FIR registered on September 4, 2016. The FIR was filed against Abhishek Saxena, his parents, and relatives, alleging offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were filed by the complainant, who is the second respondent, following an incident that allegedly occurred on June 12, 2016. The complainant claimed that Saxena and his relatives had taken away her daughter and assaulted her when she inquired about her daughter’s whereabouts.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet disclosed the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC?
  2. Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet?

Legal Provisions

  1. Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 384, IPC: Defines punishment for extortion, requiring proof of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver property or valuable security.
  • Section 406, IPC: Pertains to criminal breach of trust, necessitating proof of entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, Abhishek Saxena, contended that the chargesheet did not disclose any material evidence to substantiate the allegations of causing hurt, extortion, or criminal breach of trust. The complainant’s allegations were vague and lacked corroborative evidence, such as medical reports or documented injury claims. The FIR was filed with considerable delay, which was only after Saxena had filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage and for custody of the minor daughter under the Guardians & Wards Act.

Contentions of the Respondents

The respondents, primarily the complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the FIR and the chargesheet contained sufficient allegations to proceed with the prosecution. The delay in filing the FIR was justified due to the circumstances and the nature of the offenses. The High Court correctly declined to quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage.

Judgement and Analysis

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the materials on record, found that the allegations and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406, IPC. The Court noted that there was no material evidence to support the allegation of causing hurt, such as medical reports or treatment records. The ingredients necessary to constitute extortion and criminal breach of trust were absent in the chargesheet. The significant delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence weakened the complainant’s case. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowed the appeal.

The judgement underscores the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence before proceeding with criminal prosecution. It reflects the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta, particularly in marital disputes. The decision to quash the FIR and the chargesheet was primarily driven by the lack of essential evidence and the significant delay in filing the FIR, which appeared to be retaliatory following the petitioner’s legal actions concerning the dissolution of marriage and child custody.

Conclusion

The judgement in Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the need for due diligence and robust evidence in criminal proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding individuals from baseless prosecutions, ensuring that the legal process is not weaponized for ulterior motives. This case serves as a critical reminder of the balance that courts must maintain between allowing legitimate legal grievances to be addressed and preventing harassment through frivolous litigation.

 

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement. 

 

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.

0

No Evidence, No Case: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Marital Dispute.  

Blog, Supreme court , , , , ,

Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3628 of 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Date: November 28, 2023.

Quorum: Hon’ble J.  C. T. Ravikumar, J.  Sanjay Kumar.

Facts of the Case

In the case of Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dispute arose from an FIR registered on September 4, 2016. The FIR was filed against Abhishek Saxena, his parents, and relatives, alleging offenses under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 363 (kidnapping), 384 (extortion), and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were filed by the complainant, who is the second respondent, following an incident that allegedly occurred on June 12, 2016. The complainant claimed that Saxena and his relatives had taken away her daughter and assaulted her when she inquired about her daughter’s whereabouts.

Legal Issues

  1. Whether the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet disclosed the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406 of the IPC?
  2. Whether the High Court was justified in not exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the FIR and the chargesheet?

Legal Provisions

  1. Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 323, IPC: Deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
  • Section 384, IPC: Defines punishment for extortion, requiring proof of intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing the person to deliver property or valuable security.
  • Section 406, IPC: Pertains to criminal breach of trust, necessitating proof of entrustment of property and its dishonest misappropriation or conversion for personal use.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, Abhishek Saxena, contended that the chargesheet did not disclose any material evidence to substantiate the allegations of causing hurt, extortion, or criminal breach of trust. The complainant’s allegations were vague and lacked corroborative evidence, such as medical reports or documented injury claims. The FIR was filed with considerable delay, which was only after Saxena had filed a petition for the dissolution of marriage and for custody of the minor daughter under the Guardians & Wards Act.

 

Contentions of the Respondents

The respondents, primarily the complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh, argued that the FIR and the chargesheet contained sufficient allegations to proceed with the prosecution. The delay in filing the FIR was justified due to the circumstances and the nature of the offenses. The High Court correctly declined to quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage.

Judgement and Analysis

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the materials on record, found that the allegations and the chargesheet did not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offenses under Sections 323, 384, and 406, IPC. The Court noted that there was no material evidence to support the allegation of causing hurt, such as medical reports or treatment records. The ingredients necessary to constitute extortion and criminal breach of trust were absent in the chargesheet. The significant delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence weakened the complainant’s case. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and the chargesheet, setting aside the order of the High Court, and allowed the appeal.

The judgement underscores the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence before proceeding with criminal prosecution. It reflects the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of legal provisions for personal vendetta, particularly in marital disputes. The decision to quash the FIR and the chargesheet was primarily driven by the lack of essential evidence and the significant delay in filing the FIR, which appeared to be retaliatory following the petitioner’s legal actions concerning the dissolution of marriage and child custody.

Conclusion

The judgement in Abhishek Saxena v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the need for due diligence and robust evidence in criminal proceedings. It also highlights the judiciary’s vigilance in safeguarding individuals from baseless prosecutions, ensuring that the legal process is not weaponized for ulterior motives. This case serves as a critical reminder of the balance that courts must maintain between allowing legitimate legal grievances to be addressed and preventing harassment through frivolous litigation.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement. 

 

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.

0
sc of india21

SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE JUDGEMENT OF HIGH COURT IN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION – 302 OF IPC.

Blog, high court, Legal procedure, Lucknow High Court, Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , ,

CASE NAME: NANHE  VERSUS STATE OF U.P.

CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2791OF 2023.

DATED ON: NOVEMBER 21, 2023

QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA & JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On 30.05.2007, an incident occurred in a market area, resulting in injuries and a death of Mahendra Hussain, son of Mohd. Ali. Two cases were registered against the accused, Nanhe, under Section 304 and 308 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Both cases were tried as Sessions Trial Nos. 1097 of 2007 and 1212 of 2007 by Special Judge, S.C./S.T.(P.A.) Act,1989. The trial court found Nanhe guilty of Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-.

The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentencing of the accused in criminal appeal No.4474 of 2010, which was filed by the accused in both cases. The accused has appealed against the High Court’s judgment and order through this appeal, highlighting the single appeal filed by the accused against his conviction.

ISSUES RAISED:

  • Whether the said offence is liable to be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under second part of section 304 IPC.
  • Whether the offence committed in the state of intoxication can be taken into consideration for convicting the same .
  • Whether the known level of intoxication can be determined factor in convicting the accused.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

INDIAN PENAL CODE

  • Section-86: Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.—In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

  • Section-301: Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended. – If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause.

  • Section-302: Punishment for murder – Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

  • Section-304: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
  • Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANT:

The learned counsel for appellant argues that the deceased’s death was accidental, not intentional. The appellant was heavily intoxicated and unaware of his actions. The incident occurred on 30.05.2007 when Mohd. Ali, his son, and his son, Saddam Hussain, argued. Sant Ram, Mahendra’s brother, intervened and asked Nanhe to leave. Nanhe fired a shot, piercing Mahendra’s neck and killing him. Saddam was taken to a hospital where he died.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT:

The counsel for the respondent argues that the action of the Nanhe (appellant) which inflicted to the death of Saddam Hussain was intentional and not accidental. The appellant was  arguing with Mahendra and then, the Sant Ram intervened and asked appellant to leave the place. After walking 15 -20 steps he moved back and fired with his country made pistol   in the state of intoxication, which shows the clear intention of the appellant to murder.

COURT’S ANALYSIS:

Saddam Hussain died from a firearm shot received in his neck, fired from a country-made pistol owned by appellant Nanhe. The weapon and cartridges were recovered from him. The trial court and High Court concluded that Nanhe is guilty of an offense under Section 302 IPC. The question is whether the offense can be reduced to culpable homicide, not murder, under Section 304 IPC, given Nanhe’s intention to settle his score with Mahendra and the impact of his intoxication at the time of the incident.

The appellant argued that he had no intention to kill the deceased and was accidentally killed, despite firing a shot on Mahendra, a person he had a quarrel with earlier. Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is relevant, as it embodies the doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of motive. The court in Shankarlal Kacharabhai & Ors Vs. The State Of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1260 stated that to invoke Section 301, an offender must not have any intention to cause the death or knowledge of the potential harm.

In Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P. and Anr., (2006) 4 SCC 51, the court ruled that the High Court’s decision to set aside a Special Judge’s order based on the fact that the shooting was not aimed at the victim and he was accidently injured was in ignorance of Section 301 IPC. In Jagpal Singh Vs. State Of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 982, the court ruled that the accused was punishable under Section 302 IPC (simplicitor) under the ‘Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or Transmigration of Motive’ under Section 301 IPC.

The appellant is found guilty of culpable homicide under section 302 IPC, based on the doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of motive. The offence was committed by a person under intoxication and incapable of understanding the nature of their act. The court ruled in Basdev Vs. State Of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488, that if no evidence shows an accused’s incapacity to understand their actions due to intoxication, the killing would be an offence of murder.

The incident occurred due to a quarrel between the appellant and Mahendra, with which Saddam was killed. Hussain had no connection to the firing, but Saddam was killed by accident. The appellant may have accidentally killed Saddam intoxicated, but there is no evidence to prove he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that it was dangerous enough to cause death. Therefore, Section 86 IPC would not apply and Hussain would not be entitled to a reduction of his sentence.

JUDGEMENT:

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in confirming the conviction and punishing the appellant under Section 302 IPC.

The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. The appellant can apply for remission under the current state policy, which the State is expected to consider on its merits promptly.

“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 falls 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.”

Click here to view the full judgement: NANHE VERSUS STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

0

SUPREME COURT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF HIGH COURT & TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

Supreme court , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CASE NAME: ASHOK KUMAR MEWARI V. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NO.—– OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C)                             No. 5921 of 2019)

DATED ON: DECEMBER 05, 2023
Quorum: Honourable Justice J.K. MAHESHWARI & Justice K.V. VISWANATHAN

FACTS OF THE CASE:

An employee of the Railways applied for voluntary retirement due to medical ailments, intending to appoint his son Mukesh Mewari on compassionate grounds. The Union of India partially accepted the request but did not consider the request. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed an Original Application No. 200/00398/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, which was granted on 11.2.2016. The Tribunal issued directions that the respondent’s counsel’s reliance on the Railway Board’s circular No. E(NG)II/2009/RC-1/CR/2 dated 12.11.2014 is misplaced, and the respondents’ reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in S.S. Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 234 cannot strengthen their case. The original application is allowed, and respondents are directed to consider the applicant’s claim for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds within three months.

The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 7540 of 2016 before the High Court regarding appointment and invalidation on medical grounds, partially allowed in 2017. The court remitted the matter with observations, stating the Tribunal had made an error by not considering a circular from 2006. The application for compassionate appointment was rejected without challenge, raising questions about its maintainability. The court allowed the petition, quash the order, and remanded it for reconsideration. The appellant’s review was dismissed, leading to a subsequent Writ Petition, which was dismissed, resulting in this appeal.

SCHEME FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

Clause-7: Determination/availability of vacancies

(a) Appointment on compassionate grounds should be made only on regular basis and that too only if regular vacancies meant for that purpose are available.

(b) Compassionate appointments can be made upto a maximum of 5% of vacancies falling under direct recruitment quota in any Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ post.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the compassionate appointment can be awarded for voluntary retirement in the employment  under Indian Railways.

CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER

The petitioner argues that accepting a voluntary retirement prayer is not justified, as it was made in a composite prayer asking for voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment to his son. The court relies on the Food Corporation of India and Another v. Ram Kesh Yadav and Another case, 9 SCC 531. The petitioner’s argument is supported by the Tribunal and High Court orders, which show that the Railways’ clarification issued on November 12, 2014 applies to the petitioner’s case, despite the request for voluntary retirement and appointment to his son prior to the clarification. The order accepting voluntary retirement was passed on September 18, 2013.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

The counsel for the Railways argues that the Circular dated 12.11.2014 is a clarification and will apply to the main Circular. However, the counsel is unimpressed by the petitioner’s application dated 18.06.2013, which was a composite request for voluntary retirement and compassionate appointment to his son. The Department accepted the request before the clarification was issued. The counsel believes it is appropriate to give the respondent one chance to decide the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The respondent reiterated their understanding and relied on the circular dated November 12, 2014. The Government of India, Ministry of Railways, issued a letter of clarification dated March 3, 2009, during the hearing. The subsequent clarification dated November 12, 2014 is based on the same letter, and the findings as recorded by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court are in conformity with the said letter.

The Ministry of Railways, through the Railway Board, has laid down that if an employee is medically invalidated or de-categorised and the administration cannot find alternative posts, they may be kept on a supernumerary post in their regular grade until a suitable post can be identified or until retirement. The Circular dated June 14, 2006, which was issued on June 14, 2006, is considered valid and applicable regardless of the clarification of the Board’s letter dated November 12, 2014 regarding medical categorisation of employees. The application for voluntary retirement was made on June 18, 2013, before the classificatory circular dated November 12, 2014. The Board’s letter dated March 3, 2009, was never placed before the Tribunal or High Court to support the contention, and there is no reference to the letter in the Circular of November 12, 2014.

The appellant’s request for voluntary retirement was made instead of offering him an alternative post and his son Mukesh Mewari, a B.Com pass, to be appointed at his place. This means that his request for voluntary retirement can only be allowed if his simultaneous request for compassionate appointment of his son is accepted. This Court had the occasion to consider a similar issue in the case of Food Corporation of India and Another vs. Ram Kesh Yadav and Another (2007) 9 SCC 531, wherein this Court considered whether a conditional voluntary retirement application can be partially accepted, by granting only the request for voluntary retirement without acceding to the condition.

The appellant applied for voluntary retirement under the condition that his son Mukesh Mewari be appointed in his place. The request for voluntary retirement and the request for compassionate appointment were composite. The respondents only accepted the request for voluntary retirement without accepting the request for compassionate appointment to the appellant’s son. The board should accept both requests compositely, accepting both or rejecting them in total. The employer had the option to inform the employee that compassionate appointment could not be given due to existing norms, but this was not done in this case. The appellant’s request for compassionate appointment was not considered.

JUDGEMENT

In view of the above discussion, we allow this appeal and set­aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in the Original Application and review respectively and the order dated 13.11.2018 of the High Court. We also quash the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the West Central Railway, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur.

we direct that compassionate appointment, in the applicable post, be given to the Appellant’s son Mukesh Mewari within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. No order 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 falls 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.”

Click here to view the full judgement: ASHOK KUMAR MEWARI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

 

0

Even if there is 0.001% negligence, it should be dealt with thoroughly: SC raps NTA, Centre over NEET Exam irregularities

News & Media links, Supreme Court , , , , , , , , , ,

Amid worries over the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to medical institutions, the Supreme Court today slammed the National Testing Agency (NTA), which administers the statewide exam for medical college applicants.

“If there’s even 0.001% negligence on anyone’s part, it should be thoroughly dealt with,” the Supreme Court stated. The Supreme Court, in hearing a batch of petitions over alleged anomalies in the exam, stated that it expected “timely action” from the NTA and that the organisation must guarantee that all applicants are treated equitably.

“As the agency in charge of the exam, you must be fair. If there is an error, say yes, it is a mistake, and here is the course of action we will pursue. At the very least, that gives you confidence in your performance,” said a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti to the NTA. The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of students’ preparation for one of the country’s most difficult admission tests, stating that if someone who has cheated the system becomes a doctor, they are even more detrimental to society. It emphasised that children must study hard in order to pass NEET. “The next hearing in the case will be held on July 8.”

Last week, the NTA informed the Supreme Court that the grace marks awarded to 1,563 applicants in the NEET-UG test will be revoked, and the participants will be given the option of retaking the exam on June 23. The findings of the re-test will be announced by June 30, the Supreme Court was told.

If any of these applicants elected not to take the re-test, their previous score would be returned, minus the additional marks.
The results for the medical entrance test, which was taken by 24 lakh candidates on May 5, were released on June 4. Allegations of a test paper leak quickly emerged. As many as 67 students received flawless scores of 720/720.

Several students were offered grace marks, reportedly to compensate for lost time at the exam centre. Many student associations have complained of claimed NEET irregularities, including the release of incorrect question papers, ripped Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets, and delays in sheet delivery.

Written By: Abhishek Singh

1 2 3 … 8