LAW OFFICE ONLINE

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.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Ss. 11 (1), 21 (a) (i), 17 (1) (a) (i) and 24A –

Allotment-Complainants applied for-Payments in installments-Terms and conditions of allotment-It is the case of complainants that respective date of possession have long expired but opposite party has failed to complete construction and deliver possession of respective apartments to complainant-Pecuniary jurisdiction-Interest claimed by apartment buyer is in nature of compensation-Held case should be dealt with under Clause 4 (e) of subject Builder Buyer Agreement, which provides that if opposite party is not in a position to offer possession of apartment to allottee, opposite party shall refund consideration amount received with 10% p.a.-Opposite party is liable to refund money received from the complainants with 10% p.a. on amount w.e.f. dates of respective payments of installments-Directions issued-Complaint allowed.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, 2005; Ss. 18, 19, 20 ------ Relief when the complainant/wife failed to prove Domestic Violence -------- Held: since the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the domestic violence could not be proved and since that finding of the learned Magistrate has not been challenged by the aggrieved person, it follows that no relief could have been given to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also

Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) -- Claim for reimbursement – Whether claim can be rejected as the Superspeciality hospital is not included in the Government Order – Held: The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order.

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)

Special Marriage Act, 1954; S. 27 and 28 – Conversion of the contested Divorce suit to Mutual Divorce – Held: the learned Judge ought to have allowed the petitioner’s application for conversion. He did not do so on wrong notion that he did not have the power to do so. In other words he declined to exercise his jurisdiction thinking that he had no such jurisdiction when in fact, he had the jurisdiction to allow the application for conversion.

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.

Practice and Procedure – Order obtained by fraud – Suppression of execution of two deeds before the Court – Held: Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court -- A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation -- If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party – Order so obtained set aside.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Rejection of Insurance claim – Insurance by home loan borrower – On 29.09.2008 premium was deducted from loan account towards Insurance company -- Proposal form dated 29.09.2008 was accompanied by good health declaration by the insured – Insured person died on 17.12.2009 – Neither the bank nor the insurance company had ever informed the proposer or the appellant herein about the non-issuance of policy for want of medical certificate -- in the case of joint housing loan the full loan amount will be insured even if the policy is issued in the name of only one loanee -- Claim to pay the outstanding loan amount rejected – State Commission allowed the claim – National Commission set aside the order of State Commission – Supreme Court upheld the observation of State Commission.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 ----- whether a false allegation of impotency is an act of cruelty to create a ground for divorce ----- Held: the unproved allegations of the wife that the husband was impotent for about six to seven months from the marriage was rightly weighed by the Family Court to hold that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty by making false and baseless allegations against him ----- no husband would like to hear that he was impotent for about 6 to 7 months after the marriage, if that was not true ----- Divorce granted in favour of the husband.