The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 406

Transfer petition - Trial of the pending criminal case outside the State of Gujarat - Account of bias and a vitiated communal atmosphere - Criminal trial of the accused persons in connection with the series of bomb blasts - Supreme Court - Facts involved in the case are of a sensitive nature, cannot be denied, but that by itself cannot be a ground for transfer of the trial outside the State of Gujarat, considering the large number of witnesses to be examined to prove the case against the accused - Communally surcharged atmosphere which existed at the time of the alleged incidents, has settled down considerably and is no longer volatile - It is kept open to the Petitioners that in the event the apprehension of the petitioners regarding the communal atmosphere proved to be real during the course of the trial - Entitled to move afresh for the relief - Transfer petition disposed - No costs.

Found In:  Topic Index

Criminal Laws  - Transfer petition

Transfer petition - Deceased was killed by respondents in a fake encounter - Investigation was not progressing due to influence of local police - Matter entrusted to CBI - Police officials continue to exert influence even on investigation - Conducted by CBI - Hence petition - In order to cover up fake encounter - Deceased had been made an accused - In a case of theft and dacoity by police officials - Complainant made a serious grievance - Peculiar facts and circumstances of case - Necessary to ensure that there is no possibility of any undue influence by respondents on prosecution - Directed to transfer - Case to Court of Special Judge, CBI, Delhi, for trial or its assignment to an appropriate court.

Found In:  Topic Index, Imp. Decision, Subject Index, Judgement

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 406

Transfer petition - Deceased killed by the accused - Son of the deceased seeking transfer of proceedings from Haridwar to Delhi - Ground of transfer - Coercion and threat to the witnesses as well as doubtful sincerity of the investigating agency and prosecuting agency - Evidence showing that several letters/ applications written by the petitioner about the threats administered to him and his family by the accomplices of the accused - No action taken by the SSP, Haridwar or by Government of Uttarakhand - No protection afforded to the petitioner and his family to thwart such threats - Driver of the deceased an eye-witness of the murder - Driver turned hostile due to threats - Accused belong to powerful gang operating in U.P. - Circumstances showing it difficult for the witnesses to safely depose truth because of fear of being haunted by those against whom they have to depose - Directions issued to transfer the case from Haridwar to competent Court of jurisdiction at Delhi - Petition allowed.

Found In:  Topic Index, Judgement

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 115 , Section 307 , Section 120-B , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 391

Explosives Substances Act, 1908 - Section 4(b) - Conviction and sentence under- During the pendency of the appeal, three criminal miscellaneous appplications filed to summon PW.1, for further cross-examination on merits - High Court refused the said prayer and held that it was within the knowledge of the appellants that the Approver PW-1 had made the retraction in the year 1978 disowning his earlier statements but the three applications in question were filed after a lag of more than 20 years - Hence, the appeal - Appellants were not found in anyway responsible for the inordinate delay in their appeals - Supreme Court - It is not only the Approver (PW-1) who made diametrically opposite statements but the CBI and the State (CID) seem to be at loggerheads with the one accusing the other of manipulating and using Vikram PW-1 for its own designs and the position may be clear in case if he is subjected to further examination with reference to his statement - Provision of section 391, CrPC is not limited to recall of a witness for further cross-examination with reference to his previous statement - Impugned order of the High Court in refusing to summon Vikram, the Approver (PW.1) for his further examination set aside and direct the High Court to summon Vikram (PW.1) for his further examination by the appellants and if so desired by the CBI - Appeals allowed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Section 25

Transfer petition -On ground that the MACT Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. has no jurisdiction in the matter - Party seeking transfer of the cases - Alleges that the transferee court would be more convenient because the witnesses are available there or for some other reason it will be convenient for the parties to have the case heard by the transferee court -Supreme Court - No question of transfer - Filed in a court which has no jurisdiction at all to hear it - The petitioners are directed to apply to the District Judge (MACT Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.) for dismissal of the case pending before it on the ground of no jurisdiction - Petition dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Section 25

Transfer petition -On ground that the MACT Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. has no jurisdiction in the matter - Party seeking transfer of the cases - Alleges that the transferee court would be more convenient because the witnesses are available there or for some other reason it will be convenient for the parties to have the case heard by the transferee court -Supreme Court - No question of transfer - Filed in a court which has no jurisdiction at all to hear it - The petitioners are directed to apply to the District Judge (MACT Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.) for dismissal of the case pending before it on the ground of no jurisdiction - Petition dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  - Section 12 , The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005  - Section 12 , Section 23

Suit for annulment of marriage - During the pendency of the case, an application under Section 13-B(1) of the Act, 1955 filed seeking divorce by mutual consent - Parties moved another application to waive the statutory period of six months in filing the second petition rejected by the Family Court on the ground that such a waiver was permissible only under the directions of this Court - Petitioner could not explain as to how the case for divorce could be filed before the Family Court, Delhi during the pendency of the case for divorce before the Gurgaon Court - Procedure adopted by the petitioner amounted to abuse of process of the Court - Petition dismissed.

Found In:  Judgement

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  - Section 13

Divorce - Filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty - Trial Court holding that husband remained unsuccessful in proving that wife treated him with cruelty - Observations of the trial Court affirmed by Single judge of HC - HC Concluded that both parties were at fault, and granted relief to the husband by passing a decree for judicial separation - Division Bench set aside the judgment and granted decree of divorce to the husband - Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court concluded that behaviour of the husband as well as the wife falls short of the standard required to establish mental cruelty - No compelling necessity, before the Division Bench to justify reversal, of the decree of judicial separation - Order of the Division Bench set aside - Appeal allowed - no costs.

Found In:  Judgement