Quashment of FIR – Petitioner seeks quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings related to alleged harassment for dowry – Allegations include harassment for dowry and cruelty – FIR registered under Sections 498(A), 506, 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Allegations against petitioner – Petitioner’s son married complainant as per Hindu rituals – Second marriage of petitioner’s son – Allegations include harassment, demand of dowry, and cruelty against petitioner.

Grounds for quashment – Petitioner alleges that complaint filed for personal vendetta due to failure to settle complainant’s married life with petitioner’s son – Petitioner claims that allegations are afterthought and frivolous.

Nature of allegations – Allegations in FIR are general and omnibus, lacking specific details or incidents of cruelty attributed to petitioner – Delay in lodging complaint raises questions about veracity.

Legal principles – High Court’s jurisdiction to quash FIR under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of legal process or secure ends of justice – Principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and other relevant cases discussed.

Analysis of allegations – Complainant resided at matrimonial home for only twelve days, alleged cruelty incident is trivial – Delay in lodging complaint raises doubts about credibility – FIR appears to be a counterblast to actions taken by petitioner’s son against complainant.

Court’s decision – Court invokes inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC – Quashes FIR and consequential proceedings related to petitioner’s involvement – Cites case law to support decision.

Conclusion – MCRC disposed off – Certified copy as per rules issued.

Criminal Appeal – Challenge to conviction and sentence – Appellants convicted of various offenses, including murder and under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Multiple appeals arising from a common judgment – Arguments raised regarding inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies, doubts about the place of occurrence, and the sufficiency of evidence. [Para 8-9]

Criminal Appeal - Charges of murder and attempted murder against multiple appellants - Three key issues for consideration:

(I) Whether the prosecution has established the place of occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts?

(II) Whether the prosecution has proved the manner of occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts?

(III) Whether the non-examination of independent witnesses has prejudiced the trial of the appellants? [Para 10]

Place of Occurrence - Eyewitnesses consistently testify about the location of the incident - Corroborated by evidence of fired bullet fragments, pellets, and cartridge parts found at the scene - No doubt about the place of occurrence. [Para 11]

Manner of Occurrence - Multiple eyewitnesses provide a consistent account of the events, including the weapons used - Medical evidence aligns with eyewitness testimonies - Prosecution effectively establishes the sequence of events. [Para 12]

Non-examination of Independent Witnesses - All eyewitnesses are either related witnesses or interested witnesses - Their testimonies converge towards establishing guilt - Mere relationship does not undermine credibility - Non-examination of independent witnesses does not affect the strength of the prosecution's case. [Para 13]

Conviction and Dismissal - Prosecution successfully proves charges against certain appellants - Criminal appeals dismissed - Acquittal of other accused upheld due to lack of evidence establishing a shared common object. [Para 14-23]

Writ Petition – Inclusion of petitioner’s name in the birth certificate – Refusal by the Corporation based on a 15-year rule – Dispute over the petitioner’s name not being mentioned in her birth certificate – Validity of refusal challenged. [Para 1-5]

Rule Interpretation – Examination of whether the Municipal Corporation can refuse the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the birth certificate due to a perceived delay in the application, considering Rule 10 of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. [Para 9-10]

Rule Application – Determination that the refusal based on a 15-year period from the Rules coming into force is not justified, as it would disproportionately affect minors and the petitioner’s identity and paternity are not disputed. [Para 20]

Decision – The writ petition is allowed, the refusal endorsed on July 28, 2023, is quashed, and the respondent is directed to issue a birth certificate with the petitioner’s name within 30 days. The incorporation of Rule 10 in future birth certificates is also ordered. [Para 22]

Railway Accident – Compensation Claim – Appellants, dependents of deceased Krishna Ram, filed a claim petition against the Railway for the untoward incident leading to the death of the deceased – The Tribunal dismissed the claim application based on the argument that the deceased was not a bona fide passenger, and no journey ticket was found with him – The appellants appealed against this decision. [Para 1-3]

Bona Fide Passenger – Proof of the deceased being a bona fide passenger – Evidence presented, including the joint journey ticket of appellant No.1 and her children, inquest report, and post-mortem report, clearly establishes that the deceased was a bona fide passenger traveling with his family members. [Para 11-12]

Strict Liability – Application of Section 124-A of the Railways Act, which imposes strict liability in railway accidents – The Tribunal’s finding that the deceased’s death resulted from a railway accident, supported by evidence, affirms the applicability of strict liability. [Para 13]

Exception to Compensation – Failure to prove that the deceased’s death was due to self-inflicted injuries, suicide, or criminal act – The respondent failed to establish any of these exceptions under Section 124-A of the Railways Act. [Para 14]

Dependents – The appellants, who are the widow and children of the deceased, have proven their dependency on the deceased’s income. [Para 19]

Decision – The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside – The appellants are entitled to compensation of ₹4 lakhs with interest at a rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing the claim application – Distribution of compensation among appellants specified, including the deposit of the minor appellant’s share in a Nationalized Bank until she reaches the age of majority. [Para 20]

Regular Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.0004, dated 15.07.2022 under various sections of the IPC, Arms Act, and Explosive Substances Act. Petitioner accused of anti-national activities and contact with ISI agents. [Para 1]

Prosecution Case – Investigation Details – Secret information led to FIR against individuals for illegal activities, arms supply, and disturbing societal peace. Petitioner and co-accused named in FIR based on secret information and subsequently arrested. [Para 2]

Defense Arguments – Nature of Offense – Petitioner’s counsel argues no concrete evidence for attempted assassination or extortion, only weapon possession under Arms Act. Notes co-accused have been granted bail, some under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. [Para 3]

State Arguments – Seriousness of Offense – Counsel for the State contends petitioner part of a larger gang involved in anti-national activities. Admits only a weapon was recovered from the petitioner. [Para 4]

Court Observations – Status of Trial – Trial yet to commence; no prosecution witnesses examined. Petitioner in custody since 28.07.2022; co-accused have been granted bail. [Para 5-6]

Decision – Grant of Bail – Without commenting on the merits, the Court grants regular bail to petitioner subject to terms and conditions, including monthly police station appearances and deposit of FDR. [Para 7-10]

Miscellaneous – Court Instructions – Petitioner must deposit his passport with the Trial Court and appear monthly at the police station. FDR of Rs.1,00,000 to be deposited with the Trial Court. [Para 8-10]

Disposition – Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail under specified conditions. [Para 11]

Challenge to order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C – Petitioner company seeks registration of FIR against respondent No.1, alleging misappropriation of funds during his tenure as Credit Manager.

Discretion in ordering police investigation under Section 156(3) – Court examines whether learned JMFC was justified in declining to forward the complaint for registration of FIR – Discusses relevant legal provisions.

Exercise of discretion in a judicious manner – Magistrate’s discretion must be guided by judicial reasoning and need for police investigation, especially in cases involving documentary evidence not under the complainant’s control.

Allegations making out a cognizable offence – Prima facie case of cheating, criminal misappropriation, and forgery reflected in the allegations – Court finds the reasoning applied by the Magistrate against guiding principles of law.

Order set aside – Impugned order of declining to forward the complaint for investigation is set aside – Magistrate directed to reconsider the application for forwarding the complaint to police, adhering to guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

 Facts - petitioner, Smt. Shrenika, challenged the detention orders against a detenue - failure to provide relevant documents to the detenue within a 21-day period and the absence of translated and legible copies for proper representation before the Government and Advisory Board.

Detention – Legal Formalities - Non-compliance with the 21-day period for providing relevant documents to the detenue, thereby infringing upon the right to defend against illegal detention. [Para 7]

 Constitutional Law – Article 22(5) - Failure of the sponsoring authority to provide translated and legible copies of documents, resulting in a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to make proper representation before the Government and Advisory Board. [Para 22]

 Detention – Advisory Board - Discussion on the statutory provisions under Section 3(3) and the role of the Advisory Board in determining the validity of detention. The board's opinion is pivotal for either confirming or revoking the detention order. [Para 16]

 Decision – Quashing of Detention Orders - quashed the detention orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, directing the immediate release of the detenue. [Para 29]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC – Appellant convicted by the trial court – Dissatisfaction with the conviction – State’s appeal against the acquittal of other accused – Sequence of events leading to trial examined – Previous quarrel between accused and deceased – Appellant accused of assaulting deceased with a knife – Death attributed to stab injuries – Medical evidence supports the cause of death – Whether conviction under Section 304 Part II is justified – Discussion on applicability of Section 304 Part I and Part II – Analysis of evidence and circumstances – Appellant’s intention and premeditation – Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 – Conviction altered from Section 304 Part II to Section 304 Part I – Sentence already undergone – Appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence altered. [Para 1-15]

Civil Procedure Code – Jurisdiction – Suit for defamation against news channel – Jurisdiction of High Court questioned – Appellant alleged that news channel telecasted false and damaging news reports about respondent cricketer – High Court’s order declining transfer of suit to subordinate court challenged – Forum non conveniens considered – High Court has jurisdiction to entertain suit – Allegations of jurisdiction forum shopping unfounded – Special leave to appeal against order declined. [Para 1-7]

Civil Procedure Code – Interrogatories – Appellant seeks to set aside interrogatories served on them – Order XI Rules 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 21, and 22 of CPC applied – Pleadings must set forth sufficient factual details for fair disposal of the case – Purpose of interrogatories to discover truth and reduce litigation time – Appellant’s objections rejected – Obligation of Judges to actively seek the truth – Interrogatories to be administered liberally for efficient trial – Appellant directed to answer interrogatories within 10 days. [Para 8-16]

Discovery of Truth – Importance of ascertaining the truth in the judicial process – Judicial system created to discern and find out the real truth – Judges have a duty to actively seek the truth – Observations on the role of Judges and lawyers in pursuing truth – Need for parties to investigate and ensure authenticity of pleadings – Emphasis on the veracity of pleadings and documents – Courts to encourage the use of interrogatories for truth-seeking. [Para 11, 27-29]

Purpose of Interrogatories – Interrogatories as formal written questions administered by parties to the opposite party – Objective to disclose cases, ascertain truth, and shorten litigation – Need to avoid false or exaggerated claims or defenses – Interrogatories to be used liberally to achieve justice and reduce expenses – Liberally exercising the power of interrogatories to serve the ends of justice – Importance of complete grip on facts before dealing with a case. [Para 10, 11, 25-26, 42]

Role of Judges – Duty of Judges to actively engage in discovering truth – Judicial officers to consider truth-seeking as a paramount duty – Importance of Judges and lawyers ensuring truth prevails in the administration of justice – Judges must avoid remaining passive to proceedings – Truth as the foundation of justice – Need for disclosure and production of documents and proper admission/denial for proper perspective in civil cases. [Para 11, 12, 25, 26, 30, 34-36, 40, 44, 45, 51, 52]

Rule 7 of Order XI – Application to strike out interrogatories – Scope of Rule 7 – Application permissible to strike out unreasonable, vexatious, prolix, oppressive, unnecessary, or scandalous interrogatories – Misconceived grounds for setting aside the impugned order rejected – Appellant directed to answer interrogatories within 10 days. [Para 15]