LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S.156----Whether Magistrate can interfere into investigation ------ Held: Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (Para 15)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S.156----Whether Magistrate can order for reopening of investigation ------ Held: the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report; (Para 16)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S.156---- Whether Magistrate can interfere into investigation ------ Held: In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. (Para 17)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S.156---- Whether Magistrate can interfere into investigation ------ Held: we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.
(Para 24)

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955; ----- Whether Revenue Officer can decide the title of a property? ------ Held: The Decree passed in the Civil Court is not only binding upon the parties but also the legality of such decree cannot be tested by the Tribunal which is neither an appellate court nor a Court Competent to assess the correctness of the judg ement of the Civil Court ------ Even a void decree cannot be challenged in collateral proceeding and such void decree is binding upon the parties until it declared invalid by the Court of Competent jurisdiction ----- Learned Tribunal not being a Appellate Authority was not only incompetent to consider the correctness of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court but also in fact, exceeded its jurisdiction in making an effort to consider the legality of the judgement and decree of the Civil Court wile dealing with the Tribunal Application ----- The judgement and decree of the Civil Court which attains finality is bind not only upon the Revenue Authority but also upon the Tribunal ----- If tribunal is allowed to test the legality of the Judgement and decree of the Civil Court then there will be no finality in the adjudication by the Civil Court with regard to the disputed question of title between the two parties claiming contradictory claims for title over the property ------ The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in deciding the dispute over the title between two claimants making conflicting claims of title over the suit property cannot be disputed even though while considering the question of title in such the court is incidentally required to consider the correctness of the finally published record of rights.

Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 125, 126; ------- Territorial Jurisdiction to file case for maintenance ------- Regarding the place of institution and adjudication of the maintenance proceeding, it is indicated therein that such proceeding can be taken against any person in any district, inter alia, where the wife resides ---
-- The word ‘reside’ means to live or to have a dwelling place or an abode and is not equivalent to something in the nature of having a domicile in a particular
place or having a place as the place of origin or the place where the family used to live ----- The words ‘where he or his wife resides’ in section 126(1)(b) of the
Code has been interpreted to mean not only domicile in the technical sense of that word but also something more than a flying visit to or a casual stay in a particular place contemplating animus manendi or an intention to stay for a period. The length of the period is dependent upon the circumstances of each case ------ Thus a person ‘resides’ in a place if he/she through choice makes it his/her abode permanently or temporarily and whether he/she has chosen to make a particular place his/her abode or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case ----- The territorial jurisdiction is to be determined on the date of filing the application. Even if the wife resides at a place temporarily on the date of filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., the concerned Court within whose territorial jurisdiction she is residing, can entertain such application. (Para 7);

Limitation Act, 1963; S. 6 and 8; Limitation Act, 1963; Art. 60 -- The starting point of limitation is the attaining of majority by the ward and the period of limitation is three years -- the alienation was effected in 1953 and the period of 12 years should be calculated from that date. Section 6 of the Limitation Act provides that a person entitled to institute a suit is at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor, he may institute the suit within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise has been allowed from the time specified therefore in the third column of the schedule. Section 8 provides that nothing in Section 6 applies to suits to enforce rights of pre-emptions, or shall be deemed to extend for more than three years from the cessation of the disability, the period of limitation for any suit.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 ----- Whether during pendency of Divorce Suit the wife has right to reside at her husband’s residence ----- Wife has been residing at a rental accommodation ----- She is employed ----- Held: once a matrimonial suit has been filed, the wife has no right to have a force entry in the house of her husband against his will if she is provided with maintenance by the husband ----- Allegation that the wife tried to enter the house of the husband forcibly with the help of the local people -----Held: The sole object of the respondent was to frustrate the suit by contending that she had been staying in the same room as husband and wife and she has actually taken such plea in this proceeding ----- We, however, do not believe such assertion of the wife after taking into consideration the fact that the she has initiated proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code during the pendency of the suit and all the members of the family were arrested ----- No reasonable person will believe the statement of the wife that the husband is staying with her notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case where charge has been framed and he is an accused person along with other members of the family.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 125 – Precondition for grant of maintenance -- Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife -- The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Divorce on the ground of cruelty against wife – Wife attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene without any reason – Observed that no husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life -- The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress – Held: Only this one event was sufficient for the Appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty;

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 –; Wife’s claim to get separated from her in laws and to live separately with husband -- Observed that In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family – A wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage -- No husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income – Held: The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband;

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 ----- Recording of Barga ---- Held that in order to establish bargadar in the land of another person, the Bargadar must prove the following : -
1. that he himself is cultivating land from his own sources;
2. that he shares crops with the land owner, in the proportion provided in the Act and such factum of sharing of crops must be established by documentary evidence, namely receipt;
3. that in case of refusal to accept the share crops by the land owner, he must deposit the same to the credit of the land owner with the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer and obtain a receipt;
4. that in case of refusal to grant receipt against tendering of share crops, the bargadar has to lodge a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 19A (2A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. S. 19A (2A) ----- Lodging of complaint ----- Held: therein that lodging of such complaint, prima facie establishes the fact of refusal to grant receipt as Section 19A (2A) of the West Bengal land Reforms Act provides that refusal to grant receipt is a punishable offence and the same is cognizable also. Therefore, the importance of issuance of receipt is well‐understood.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955; S. 18 ----- Recording of Barga ---- Standard of proof ----- Held: though laws of evidence is not strictly applied in such proceeding but the basic facts regarding cultivation of the petitioners’ land by the respondent No.7 and sharing of produce between them in the same proportion as mentioned in the said Act arerequired to be proved by substantive evidence.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955; S. 18 ------ Refusal by landowner to accept the share of produce ---- Duty cast upon claimed Barga ----- He should intimate the B.L. & L.R.O. and must deposit the share of crop with the Revenue Officer against receipt ----- Issuance of notice to the Land owners regarding deposit of such share of crops ----- Intimation given to the Pradhan about the refusal to accept the share of the produce by the petitioner, cannot be regarded as due compliance of the provision contained in Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; S. 166 -- As to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 7 R. 11 – What to consider while Rejection of plaint – Held: Court is required to consider the pleadings made out in the plaint itself and the annexures thereto for ascertaining as to whether the plaint is liable to be rejected on any of the grounds as mentioned therein -- Court cannot consider any other document and/or material beyond the pleadings made out in the plaint and/or annexures thereto.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 7 R. 11 – Whether the plaint as a whole can be rejected when part of the plaintiff’s claim can be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court -- Absence of independent cause of made the plaint liable to be rejected in whole.

West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006; S. 102 -- Suit challenging wrongful termination of the building contract -- Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as it is barred under the provision contained in Section 102 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 – In absence of any contradiction it can be assumed that the business of housing co-operative society is of constructing dwelling units for its members -- the dispute between the plaintiff and the Cooperative Society concerns the business of the said Cooperative Society and it relates to the affairs of the said Cooperative Society and such dispute is a dispute within the meaning of the dispute under Section 4(25) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 which is capable of resolution by the Registrar as per the provision of Section 102 of the said Act -- the Civil Court as per the provision of Section 102 (4) of the said Act.