0

“Supreme Court Reins in High Court’s Overreach in Criminal Case Impleadment”

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

Case Title – N. Manogar & Anr. vs. The Inspector of Police & Ors.

Case No. – SLP (Crl.) No(s). 8696 of 2021

Dated on – 16th February, 2024

Quorum – Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

 

Facts of the Case –

The first respondent registered an FIR on April 20, 2018, pursuant to a High Court order dated January 24, 2018, based on a complaint by the second respondent. The complaint alleged that the third respondent assaulted the complainant and her son, Vidhul, at their home, accompanied by her husband (Appellant No. 1) and another boy (Appellant No. 2). However, the chargesheet only named the third respondent, leading to the complainant’s application for re-investigation under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court, on February 5, 2019, allowed the complainant to seek impleadment of the appellants under Sections 319 and 216 CrPC.

The Trial Court, on May 6, 2019, partly allowed the application by impleading Appellant No. 1 as an accused but dismissed it regarding Appellant No. 2. Both parties filed revision petitions, resulting in the High Court remanding the matter back to the Trial Court, which again dismissed the application on October 24, 2019, citing insufficient evidence against the appellants. The High Court subsequently reversed this decision on September 13, 2021, based on prima facie findings of the appellants’ involvement.

Legal Provisions –

  • Section 216 of CrPC, 1973
  • Section 319 of CrPC, 1973
  • Section 482 of CrPC, 1973

Contentions of the appellant –

The appellants, represented by learned senior counsel Mr. S. Nagamuthu, contended before the Supreme Court that the Madras High Court had erroneously exercised its jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by reversing the Trial Court’s order without a proper appreciation of the facts and evidence on record. The appellants argued that the allegations against them were vague and omnibus, lacking specificity and direct evidence of their involvement in the alleged offenses. They asserted that there was no substantial material to justify their impleadment as accused persons, and the High Court failed to adhere to the principles established in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, which dictate that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where strong and cogent evidence indicates a person’s involvement in the commission of an offense. The appellants maintained that the Trial Court’s decision was well-reasoned and did not suffer from any legal perversity, thus should not have been overturned by the High Court.

 

Contentions of the Respondent –

The respondents, through their learned counsel, vigorously opposed the appellants’ contentions, asserting that the High Court correctly appreciated the allegations and evidence presented. They argued that the underlying complaint, the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, and the examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses collectively disclosed sufficient material implicating the appellants in the commission of the alleged offenses. The respondents contended that the High Court properly invoked its powers under Section 319 CrPC, which requires a prima facie satisfaction of the accused’s involvement in the crime. They maintained that the allegations and evidence on record established a strong case against the appellants, thereby justifying their impleadment as accused persons. The respondents further cited the decision in Jitendra Nath Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh to support their stance that the High Court’s order did not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity and was in accordance with established judicial principles.

 

Court Analysis and Judgement –

The Court, after hearing the submissions and perusing the records, analyzed the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 of the CrPC. The Court reaffirmed the stance established in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that the power under Section 319 is discretionary, extraordinary, and must be exercised sparingly. This power should be invoked only in cases where strong and cogent evidence is present against a person, surpassing a prima facie case but short of conclusive evidence of guilt. The Court noted that the High Court failed to apply this stringent standard and improperly exercised its discretion by setting aside the Trial Court’s well-reasoned order. The materials on record, including the vague allegations in the complaint, the statements under Section 161 CrPC, and the examination-in-chief, did not meet the requisite threshold for impleading the appellants as accused. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and upholding the Trial Court’s decision. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

 

“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 – Anurag Das

 

 

0

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Revises Compensation in Motor Accident Claim, Reduces Amount by INR 4.45 Lakh: Highlights Calculation Errors

Blog, The Madurai Bench of Madras Court , , ,

Case Title – The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors.
Case Number – CMA (MD) No. 249/2021 and CMP (MD) No. 2123/2021
Dated on – 18th April, 2024
Quorum – Justice RMT. Teekaa Raman and Justice P.B. Balaji

FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors., originated from a motor accident involving a private bus and a two-wheeler driven by Akbar Ali, who died in the accident. His Children and wife, Ramzan Begum (Respondent) and other injured passengers instituted multiple MCOPs (387, 388, 389, 391, and 429 of 2016) for compensation. The Insurance company (Appellant) contested the award, especially focusing on the MCOP No. 387 of 2016. The Tribunal found the bus driver negligent based on the testimonies of the Witness (PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5). The Tribunal awarder compensation to Akbar Ali and his family based on his alleged income as an Operations Manager in Malaysia, converting his salary to Indian Currency and adding future prospects. The Appellant, thereby, contested the negligence finding the quantum of compensation, asserting that the calculation based on foreign earnings and future prospects was incorrect.

ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the driver of the private bus was negligent in causing the accident that led to the death of Akbar Ali?
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal properly assessed the compensation amount awarded to the family of Akbar Ali?
Whether the Tribunal correctly accounted for future prospects in the income of the deceased and applied appropriate deductions for personal expenses and dependency?
Whether the interest rate applied to the awarded compensation was appropriate and aligned with the legal standards?
Whether the grounds presented by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in their appeal were sufficient to warrant a modification of the awarded compensation?

LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes that No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle, and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section
Section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes that The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes the Appeal
Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Evidence to be taken in presence of accused

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that Akbar Ali was negligent and responsible for the accident and that moreover he was not exercising due caution while riding the motorcycle, which contributed to the accident.
The Appellant claimed that the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was excessive and not in accordance with the actual financial loss suffered by the family of the deceased and that the Tribunal did not appropriate deductions for personal expenses, thus, a higher percentage should have been deducted from the income of the deceased person for the personal living expenses, reducing the amount available for dependency.
Further it was asserted that the Tribunal overestimated the monthly income of the deceased and that the calculation of the income of the deceased was without sufficient basis. The future prospects should not have been considered or should not have been applied at a lower rate.
Moreover, the interest rate applied to the awarder compensation was too high, thus it was asserted for a reduction in the interest rate to align with the current legal standards and financial conditions.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the bus driver was entirely at fault for the accident and that the bus driver was driving recklessly and negligently, which directly caused the death of Akbar Ali.
It was asserted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was fair and just, given the circumstances and the financial loss suffered by the family of Akbar Ali and that the amount was in accordance with the legal precedents and the needs of the dependents.
The assessment done by the Tribunal of the monthly income of Akbar Ali was supported by the Respondents and provided evidence that Akbar Ali had a stable and significant income, which was appropriately considered by the Tribunal.
Furthermore, it was argued that the inclusion of the future prospects in the income calculation was justified and that Akbar Ali, being young and in stable employment, had a reasonable expectations of future income growth.
The Respondent maintained that the deductions applied for personal expenses were appropriate and aligned with the legal standards and argued that the Tribunal correctly calculated the amount available for dependency.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of The Branch Manager of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mrs. Ramzan Begam and Ors., discovered that the monthly salary of the deceased, Akbar Ali was RM 3000 which if converted to INR 45,000 with 25% as added future prospect, the income is INR 56,250 and after a 30% tax deduction and a 10% economic disparity adjustment, the final monthly income is INR 33,750. The court calculated the pecuniary loss of INR 40,50,000 using a multiplier of 15 and considering 1/3rd deduction for personal expenses due to three dependants. The court determined the Loss of Consortium as INR 1,20,000, Funeral Expenses as INR 15,000, Transportation Expenses as INR 15,000 and the Loss of Estate as INR 15,000. The court reduced the total compensation from INR 46,60,000 to INR 42,15,000, with an interest rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment.
The appeal was partly allowed by the court with specified modifications and that the Appellant was directed to deposit the reduced award within eight weeks. The claimants are permitted to withdraw their share as per the allocation of the Tribunal, with the share of the minor claimant to be held in an interest-bearing account until they reach majority. The claimants are required to pay court fees on the enhanced compensation amount. No costs were awarded and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P)  is closed.
“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 – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment

0

Tamil Nadu high court by ruling on Eligibility of Candidates Based on Political Affiliation disposes off the writ petition

Blog, blog , ,

Case Title: M.L.Ravi vs Chief Election Commissioner

Case No: W.P.Nos.27375 of 2019 & 12684 of 2021

Decided on: 09.01.2024

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, Chief Justice

               The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Bharatha Charavarthy 

 

 Facts of the Case

The petitioner alleges irregularities in the election process related to respondents 10-14 and 3-10. They claim these candidates illegally contested on a different party’s symbol despite belonging to another party. This allegedly violates guidelines set by the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The petitioner argues that false affidavits were filed claiming non-membership in other parties, and the acceptance forms for these candidates should be declared invalid, rendering their election results null and void.

Issue

  • Whether the petitioners are members of 2 political parties or one?
  • Whether petitioners are members of the political party on whose symbol they contested election?

Legal Provision

Article 324 of the Constitution of India, gives power to the Election Commission to direct, control, and conduct elections to all Parliament, to the Legislature of every state and of elections to the offices of the President and Vice President held under the Constitution. It vests the “superintendence, direction and control of elections” in an Election Commission consisting “of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix”.

Article 329B of the Constitution of India provides that the election of a legislative candidate can only be assailed by way of an election petition

Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 talks about Registration with the Election Commission of associations and bodies as political parties

Court Analysis & Decision

The counsel for petitioner during his submission relied on the judgement of supreme court in K.Venkatachalam v. A.Swamickan [Appeal (Civil) 1719 of 1986].

The respondents contesting the election countered the petitioner’s claims by asserting membership in the party whose symbol they used and cite the Election Symbols Order requiring candidates backed by specific state parties to adopt that party’s reserved symbol. Furthermore, they invoke Article 329B of the Constitution, specifying that challenges to legislative election results must be filed through formal election petitions. In essence, they argued their adherence to election rules and emphasize the proper legal course for contesting their victory.

Despite relying on a precedent where an ineligible candidate was disqualified, the court ruled differently in this case. Disputed factual questions surrounding the respondents’ party affiliations made them unsuitable for resolution through a writ petition. The court emphasized the need for proper legal channels like election petitions to address such contested matters, ultimately dismissing the petitioner’s claims.

 

 

 

“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 the 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.”

 

Written by- Bhawana Bahety

click to view judgement

0

The Madras High Court held that Orders issued under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are primarily administrative and are not subject to challenge unless they are evidently illegal and issued without due consideration.

Blog ,

The Madras High Court held that Orders issued under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are primarily administrative and are not subject to challenge unless they are evidently illegal and issued without due consideration.

Case Title: M Palani v The State and Others

Case No: Crl.OP (MD) No.19181 of 2023

Decided on: 01 November, 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G. ILANGOVAN

Introduction

The Madras High Court while hearing a plea by M Palani who relied on Section 408 Cr.P.C seeking permission from this court to approach the Principal Sessions Judge for transfer of the trial of his case to another court held that Orders issued under Section 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are primarily administrative and are not subject to challenge unless they are evidently illegal and issued without due consideration.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner is accused in case filed for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 294(b), 109, 302, 307, 506(2), 120B, 149 and 114 IPC pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The same case was handed over to the III Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, subsequent to the committal process.

The petitioner previously filed a similar case before the Principal Sessions Judge relying on Section 408 Cr.P.C seeking transfer of the trial of his case to another Judge, which is still pending. The petitioner filed both the cases on the grounds that he is enduring difficulties such as modifying the testimonies, altering the basis of the case, and deleting a segment of the evidence presented by the prosecution and intervention of the concerned Special Public Prosecutor occurred without proper authorization during the trial process.

Courts analysis and decision

In the present case, the court held a opinion that the petitioner is seeking a judge of his preference, with an inclination for orders consistently in his favour. The judge’s supposed significant prejudice is not justified by simple negative orders rendered against the accused during the trial. The transfer of the case to the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, cannot be solely justified based on the petitioner’s difficulties before the same judge. Such a right to demand a specific judge is not legally available.

The court observed that it’s not right to interfere or issue any orders in the first case and it should be dealt by the Principal Sessions Judge.

The court further held under Section 194 of the Criminal Procedure, the Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, if relevant, are authorised to preside over matters transferred by general or special order. It is not possible to contest the Principal Sessions Judge’s decision to assign cases to any judge. It is fundamentally administrative in nature for the Principal Sessions Judge to issue an order under Section 194 Cr.P.C., which essentially distributes the caseload among Additional District Judges. Until such administrative orders clearly violate the law, they are unchallengeable.

“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.”

Written by- Rupika Goundla

Click here to view judgement

0

The Madras High Court while dismissing a petition observing that a married woman does not relinquish her residential rights at her parental home due to marriage.

Blog

The Madras High Court while dismissing a petition observing that a married woman does not relinquish her residential rights at her parental home due to marriage.

 

Case Title: G. Mayakannan v. The District Collector

Case No: W.P. No.2456 of 2021

Decided on: 30 October, 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N. MANJULA

Introduction

The Madras High Court while dismissing a petition filed by G. Mayakannan contesting the appointment of a B Saranya as Panchayat Secretary based on residency claims, observed that a married woman does not relinquish her residential rights at her parental home due to marriage.

Facts of the Case

The G. Mayakannan filed a petition challenging the appointment of the B Saranya in the post of Panchayat Secretary alleging that she is not resident of the panchayat, and she got the employment through forgery and misrepresentation. He further alleged that he is much senior to her as per Employment Exchange registration roster and she has only registered in the only for the purpose of this post.  

B Saranya was born and brought up in Jayakondam and her parents were permanent residents of Jayakondam. After marriage, she shifted her residence to that of husband’s place. The petitioner based his contention based on shifting her residence due to which she lost residence of Jayakondam and due to same she is not eligible for the post of Panchayat Secretary.

Courts analysis and decision

The court was of the opinion that a woman does not abandon or loss her native residence after her marriage and she can’t be assumed to have disowned her residential rights at her parents’ house due to her marriage. She has absolute right to choose her residence between natal home and marital home. A married woman has all rights to choose where to live or stay.

In the present case, B Saranya is still a resident of Jayakondam though she is married, and her parents are still in Jayakondam and not uprooted from that place. The onus on the married woman to choose her residence and she does not loss her native residence merely because she shifted to her husband’s place after marriage.

The court further noted that it is not compulsory to choose the senior over the junior for employment of any post. Though individuals who have registered earlier and are in a waiting status should not be overlooked in favor of sponsoring those who registered later.

“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.”

Written by-  Rupika Goundla

Click here to view your judgement

1 2 3 … 13