LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; -- Whether limitation in filing the complaint under the DV Act, 2005 is one year – Held: In case of subsisting relatiohship of husband and wife, there is no limitation. Meaning thereby that the complaint under the D.V. Act, can be filed at any time as the physcical and mental harassment within the family is a continuing offence.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; -- Whether complaint under D.V.Act, is maintainable where a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is already pending? – Held: It is held that both proceedings are of different nature and can be filed separately. In this case the proceedings under the D.V Act, can continue on the same set of facts of a case under Section 406, 498-A IPC.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Force Majeure -- Complaint against developer for delayed possession – Developer took the plea of Force Majeure on the ground that Authority failed to supply electricity in time – Documents revealed that the Developer made payment to Authority for electric at a much later date -- The plea of Force Majeure circumstances does not stand – Award for registration in favour of the complainant along the penal interest and compensation.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; S.24A – Limitation to lodge consumer complaint – Delay of more than two years since arising of cause of action – Held: after accepting almost the entire consideration amount it is bounden duty on the part of developer/builder to deliver possession and to execute the sale deed and unless it is done, the cause of action is a continuous one.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 439 ----- Application for Bail to Session Court or High Court without filing application before the Magistrate ---
-- If maintainable ----- Held: that there are no restrictions on the High Court or Sessions Court to entertain an application for bail, provided, accused is in custody.

Supreme Court observed: where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following : i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony. Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur

Limitation to file claim for due maintenance – Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case the Court held that the bar under Section 125(3) cannot be applied

Revenue Record – Whether Revenue Record establish title – Held: revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof, both forward and backward, can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act.

Possession follows title -- Held: Possession follows title is applicable in cases where proof of actual possession cannot reasonably be expected, for instance, in the case of waste lands, or where nothing is known about possession one-way or another. Presumption of title as a result of possession, can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 205 ------ Exemption from personal appearance ----- Case under section 498A IPC read with S.4 of D.P. Act at Patna ----- Appellant No. 1 is a retired Army personal and residing in Pune, Appellant No. 2, Appellant No. 3 and 4 are also resident of Pune and the husband is working in Hyderabad ------- The appellants are engaged in their respective jobs at their respective places ------ Sufficient grounds are there to allow application under section 205 Cr.P.C.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 156 (3) ----- Further investigation --- -- Held: on receipt of the report, before taking cognizance of the offence alleged, may direct further investigation under sub-Section (3) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. and require the police to make further report and that such power can be exercised suo motu, contingent on its satisfaction of the necessity thereof to espouse the cause of justice. (Para 27)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 156(3) ---- Whether a judicial Magistrate, after taking cognizance of an offence, on the basis of a police report and after appearance of the accused in pursuance of the process issued, can order of its own, further investigation ----- Held: the Magistrate of his own, cannot order further investigation after the accused had entered appearance pursuant to a process issued to him subsequent to the taking of the cognizance by him. (Para 31)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 173(8) ----- Whether, after the chargesheet had been filed by the investigating agency under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C, and charge had been framed against some of the accused persons on the basis thereof, and other co-accused had been discharged, the Magistrate could direct the investigating agency to conduct a re-investigation or further investigation under sub-Section (8) of Section 173 ----- Held: after taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report and after the appearance of the accused, a Magistrate cannot of its own order further investigation, though such an order could be passed on the application of the investigating authority ----- the power of the investigating officer to make a prayer for conducting further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code was not taken away only because a charge-sheet had been filed under Section 173(2) and a further investigation was permissible even if cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate ----- once a charge-sheet was filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C and either charges have been framed or the accused have been discharged, the Magistrate may on the basis of a protest petition, take cognizance of the offence complained of or on the application made by the investigating authority, permit further investigation under Section 173(8), but he cannot suo motu direct a further investigation or order a re-investigation into a case on account of the bar of Section 167(2) of the Code. (Para 32, 33)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 173(8) ----- Whether in exercise of powers under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to ignore any of the police reports, where there was more than one, whether by the same or different investigating agencies submitted in furtherance of the orders of a Court ----- Held: the investigating agency was thus competent to file a report supplementary to its primary report and that the former was to be treated by the Court in continuation of the latter. (Para 36)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 173 ----- Whether Magistrate can direct further investigation either suo moto or on the prayer of the informant after the final report had been submitted, cognizance had been taken, accused had appeared, and trial is underway ----- Held: that though the investigating agency concerned has been invested with the power to undertake further investigation desirably after informing the Court thereof, before which it had submitted its report and obtaining its approval, no such power is available therefor to the learned Magistrate after cognizance has been taken on the basis of the earlier report, process has been issued and accused has entered appearance in response thereto. At that stage, neither the learned Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant direct further investigation. Such a course would be open only on the request of the investigating agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial, the life purpose of the adjudication in hand ----- Though the Magistrate has the power to direct investigation under Section 156(3) at the pre-cognizance stage even after a charge-sheet or a closure report is submitted, once cognizance is taken and the accused person appears pursuant thereto, he would be bereft of any competence to direct further investigation either suo motu or acting on the request or prayer of the complainant/informant.

Words and Phrases ----- Investigation, Further Investigation and De novo Investigation ----- Held: Whereas initial investigation was alluded to be one conducted in furtherance of registration of an FIR leading to a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code, further investigation was a phenomenon where the investigating officer would obtain further oral or documentary evidence after the final report had already been submitted, so much so that the report on the basis of the subsequent disclosures/discoveries by way of such evidence would be in consolidation and in continuation of the previous investigation and the report yielded thereby. “Fresh investigation” “reinvestigation” “de novo investigation”, however is an exercise, which it was held, could neither be undertaken by the investigating agency suo motu nor could be ordered by the Magistrate and that it was essentially within the domain of the higher judiciary to direct the same and that too under limited compelling circumstances warranting such probe to ensure a just and fair investigation and trial. (Para 39)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 26 – Whether earning mother has any liability towards maintenance of the child -- As much the obligation of the father to maintain a minor child as that of the mother -- It is not the law that how affluent mother may be it is the obligation only of the father to maintain the minor.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; S. 138; Security Cheque –The word Security Cheque has been used in the agreement -- The said expression refers to the cheques being towards repayment of installments -- The repayment becomes due under the agreement, the moment the loan is advanced and the installment falls due -- Once the loan was disbursed and installments have fallen due on the date of the cheque as per the agreement, dishonour of such cheques would fall under Section 138 of the Act -- The cheques undoubtedly represent the outstanding liability.