0

“Delhi HC Emphasizes Unique Dynamics of Domestic Violence Cases Involving Women in Authority”

Blog, Delhi High Court , , , , , , ,

Case title: Sanghmitra v. State

Case no.:  CRL.M.C. 1227/2009

Dated on: 1st April 2024

Quorum: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner in this case has filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 04.10.2008, in CR No. 87/2008. This judgment pertains to a case arising from FIR No. 1098/2002, registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar, Delhi, for an offense under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The facts of the case indicate that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC on 03.07.2002 against respondent nos. 2 to 8 with the CAW Cell. This complaint led to the registration of FIR No. 1098/2002. The petitioner alleged that she was married to respondent no. 2 according to Buddhist rites and ceremonies on 28.02.1998.

Allegations were made regarding demands for dowry, verbal abuse, and physical violence against her. The accused persons allegedly used to abuse the petitioner and used to ask her to give them more dowry. It was further alleged in the complaint that a specific demand of Rs. 1.5 lakhs, a car, and a separate house was raised by the husband of the petitioner and her in-laws.

The charge-sheet in the case was filed on 27.07.2004, and the accused persons were charged under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC. However, the learned Magistrate dropped the charges under Section 406 of IPC against the accused persons on the ground that the complaint did not mention a demand for the return of articles. The accused persons were charged under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC.

The accused persons filed a revision petition (CR No. 87/2008) against the order framing charges, which was allowed by the learned Sessions Court through the impugned judgment, discharging the accused persons for the offense under Sections 498A/34 of IPC. The petitioner/complainant has now challenged this judgment through the present petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the Sessions Court erred in discharging respondent nos. 2 to 8 from the FIR. They contend that the complaint was within the limitation period, as it was filed within three years of the last alleged offense. The counsel asserts that the date of filing the complaint, not the date of cognizance, determines the limitation period. They emphasize that Section 498A IPC covers continuing offenses, including mental cruelty, even if the wife is not residing at her matrimonial home.

The petitioner stated in the complaint that dowry demands persisted after she left the matrimonial home, extending to mental torture via phone calls. The counsel criticizes the Sessions Court for prematurely assessing the case’s merits, alleging potential false implication solely due to the complainant being a police officer. They argue that the respondent no. 2, also a police officer, wouldn’t have been implicated without merit. The counsel maintains that specific allegations justify the inclusion of the accused relatives and seeks the reversal of the judgment.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The counsel for respondent no. 2 contends that the learned Magistrate lacked authority to review the order dated 27.07.2004 and could only condone delay at the time of taking cognizance. They argue that Section 468 of Cr.P.C. bars cognizance of a time-barred case unless delay is condoned under Section 473 at the time of cognizance. The complaints filed by the petitioner were after she had been residing separately, and lacked specific allegations, only containing general ones.

They assert that as a second appellate court, this court cannot delve into the case’s merits based on factual instances. They further argue that despite the petitioner’s knowledge of law and investigation procedures as a Delhi Police employee, she failed to produce supporting documents or witnesses. Thus, they pray for the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Pertains to the bar on taking cognizance of certain offenses after the lapse of the prescribed period.
  2. Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): Relates to the power of the court to take cognizance of an offense after the lapse of the prescribed period if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained.
  3. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with the offense of cruelty by husband or relatives of the husband towards a woman.
  4. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

ISSUE –

The issue at hand, after scrutinizing the entirety of the case’s factual context, revolves around whether the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on 27.07.2004 was time-barred under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., and whether the learned Sessions Court appropriately discharged the accused individuals in its judgment dated 04.10.2008.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

Cognizance by the Magistrate was Not Barred by Limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

Undisputed facts include the petitioner leaving her matrimonial home on 08.09.1999, filing a complaint with the CAW Cell on 03.07.2002, the police registering an FIR on 19.12.2002 under Sections 498A/406 of IPC, and the prosecution filing a charge-sheet on 27.07.2004, with cognizance taken on the same day.

Regarding the issue of cognizance, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, clarified that for computing the limitation period under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the date of filing the complaint or institution of prosecution is relevant, not the date of Magistrate’s cognizance. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P. and Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty that the date of filing the complaint determines the limitation period, not the date of cognizance.

Applying this principle, considering the date of the alleged offense and the date of filing the complaint, it is evident that the complaint was within the limitation period. The petitioner’s complaint included incidents beyond the date of leaving her matrimonial home, indicating ongoing cruelty, as emphasized in Rupali Devi v. State of U.P.

Therefore, it prima facie appears that there was no delay in filing the complaint under Section 498A/406 of IPC. However, it remains for the Trial Court to determine whether these incidents fall within the ambit of Section 498A of IPC.

The impugned judgment is subject to being overturned for two reasons:

Firstly, the bar under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. doesn’t apply here, as the complaint was filed within the limitation period. Therefore, the question posed by the Sessions Court regarding condoning delay in a supposedly time-barred case was misframed.

Secondly, the Sessions Court’s reasoning for refusing to condone the delay is flawed. It seems to suggest that a police officer, like the petitioner, cannot be a victim of domestic violence, which is a biased and unjustified perception. The court’s decision should be based on facts, not biases or stereotypes about gender or profession. Judicial decisions must be grounded in law, precedents, and evidence, not assumptions or prejudices about individuals’ professions or personal lives.

Judicial decisions must embrace gender neutrality and remain free from hidden biases. Biases, ingrained in societal norms, can subtly influence judgments, but judges must ensure impartiality. In this case, biases led to overlooking the complexities of domestic violence, particularly for empowered women. Judicial education is vital to address biases and ensure fairness in adjudication. The court emphasizes the importance of continuous training for judges to understand diverse perspectives and enhance public trust in the legal system. The impugned judgment is set aside, affirming the framing of charges under Sections 498A/34 of IPC. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with instructions to inform the trial court and upload the judgment on the website.

“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 – Chiraag K A

Click here to View full Judgement

1

“Delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity” Supreme Court Rejects Govt’s Time Barred Suit

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , 1

Case title: Union of India & Anr. v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21096 of 2019)

Dated on: 3rd April 2024

Quorum: Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice J.B. Pardiwala

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the annals of legal battles, the saga of delays often takes center stage. The case at hand, emanating from an order by a learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bears testament to the perennial struggle between the imperatives of justice and the rigidity of timelines. Let’s delve into the intricate web of facts, submissions, issues, and judicial pronouncements that define this legal saga.

The genesis of the dispute lies in a lease agreement dated 09.03.1951, wherein the respondent leased a property to the appellants. Subsequently, due to alleged breaches by the appellants, the respondent filed a suit for possession and arrears of rent in 1981. The trial court decreed the suit in 1987, which was subsequently affirmed in appellate proceedings in 1992. The appellants then approached the High Court in 1993, seeking relief under Article 227 of the Constitution.

However, due to non-prosecution, the petition was dismissed in 2006. Despite subsequent execution proceedings initiated by the respondent in 2013, the appellants only moved to restore the petition in 2019, citing a delay of 12 years and 158 days. The High Court, in its order dated 09.07.2019, declined to condone the delay, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The learned Attorney General, representing the appellants, argued vehemently for condonation of the delay. He underscored the significance of the suit property being within Pune Cantonment, asserted as Union-owned land. The delay, according to him, should not prejudice the government’s rights over the land.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

In opposition, Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, the learned senior counsel for the respondent, contended that the High Court’s decision was legally sound. He emphasized the lack of sufficient cause presented by the appellants to justify the lengthy delay in seeking restoration.

In Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, (2010) 5 SCC 459, SC rejected the application for condonation of delay of 4 years in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree on the ground that the explanation offered for condonation of delay is found to be not satisfied.

In Postmaster General and others v. Living Media India Limited, (2012) 3 SCC 563, while dismissing the application for condonation of delay of 427 days in filing the Special Leave Petition, held that condonation of delay is not an exception and it should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments.

In that case, SC held that unless the Department has reasonable and acceptable reason for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process cannot be accepted.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 227 of Constitution of India, Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court, Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

ISSUE –

  • Whether the delay of 12 years and 158 days in filing the restoration application warrants condonation.
  • Whether the appellants have presented sufficient cause to justify the delay.
  • Whether the High Court erred in its decision to decline condonation.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

Upon meticulous examination of the submissions and pertinent legal precedents, the Supreme Court embarked on a rigorous analysis. The Court acknowledged the suggestion made by the High Court regarding the possibility of restoration if possession of the property were relinquished, a proposition the appellants declined. It emphasized the significance of diligence in litigation and the sanctity of limitation periods.

Referring to established legal principles, the Court underscored that condonation of delay is not an automatic entitlement. It stressed the need for parties to demonstrate sufficient cause, highlighting the lack thereof in the present case. The Court disapproved of the appellants’ casual approach towards litigation and their failure to proffer a compelling rationale for the delay.

Drawing parallels from prior judgments, the Court reiterated that the law of limitation is founded on principles of equity and public policy, serving to maintain certainty and prevent undue prejudice. It cautioned against leniency in condoning delays, particularly in the absence of bona fide efforts or justifiable reasons.

Ultimately, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision, refusing to intervene in the absence of compelling grounds to condone the delay. It emphasized the paramountcy of adherence to legal timelines and the imperative of balancing justice with procedural rigor.

In the realm of legal proceedings, time is of the essence, and the case law discussed serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of delay. Upholding the sanctity of limitation periods, the Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the need for parties to approach litigation with diligence and foresight, lest they risk forfeiture of their rights. As legal battles unfold, the scales of justice remain finely calibrated, weighing the merits of each case against the imperative of timely recourse to legal remedies.

“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 – Chiraag K A

Click here to View Judgement

1

“Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal only on the ground that another view is possible”: Supreme Court

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , , , , 1

Case title: Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda & Anr. v. State of Gujarat

Case no.: Criminal Appeal no. 334 of 2019

Dated on: 10th April 2024

Quorum: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case revolves around an incident that occurred on September 17, 1996, where the appellants, a father and son, were accused of assaulting Punjabhai (the deceased) with pipes and sticks, resulting in his death. Initially, the Sessions Court acquitted the appellants, but the State of Gujarat appealed against the acquittal, leading to the High Court converting the acquittal into a conviction. Subsequently, the case reached the Supreme Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that the High Court, while overturning the order of acquittal, had relied upon the police statement of PW-4 and had erroneously put the burden on the appellants to adduce evidence to show their innocence. He submitted that the entire approach of the High Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, is completely erroneous. He submitted that there is no finding recorded by the High Court that the only possible view which could be taken based on the evidence was that the guilt of the appellants had been proved. The learned senior counsel submitted that the High Court had erred in overturning the order of acquittal.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently submitted that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court was duty-bound to reappreciate the evidence, and after finding that evidence of PW-4, an eyewitness, completely inspires confidence, the High Court rightly interfered with the order of acquittal.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) : Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) : Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention – When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

ISSUE –

  1. Validity of High Court’s Intervention: Whether the High Court’s interference with the acquittal was justified and in accordance with legal principles.
  2. Reliability of Witness Testimonies: Assessment of the credibility of key witnesses, particularly PW-4, in light of inconsistencies and discrepancies in their statements.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The apex court emphasized the cardinal principle that while reviewing an acquittal, the Appellate Court must ascertain if the trial court’s verdict was plausible based on evidence. It criticized the High Court for not addressing this pivotal question and cautioned against overturning acquittals merely on the basis of alternative interpretations. The court chastised the High Court’s misapplication of burden of proof, reiterating that unless statutorily mandated, the onus remains on the prosecution.

After meticulously dissecting the testimonies, the Supreme Court concurred with the Trial Court’s scepticism towards the eyewitness account, citing inconsistencies and vested interests. It rebuked the High Court’s failure to appreciate these nuances and reinstated the acquittal, affirming the presumption of innocence. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted, and the Trial Court’s verdict reinstated.

The Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda case stands as a testament to the judiciary’s commitment to rigorous scrutiny and adherence to legal principles, especially in appeals against acquittals. It underscores the importance of evidence appreciation and the presumption of innocence, serving as a beacon in navigating the labyrinth of criminal litigation.

“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 – Chiraag K A

Click here to View Judgement