OU Law CrPC

 Date : 5th August 2021

Abetment - 306 IPC

 

Important points

1. To bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be 
1. Case of suicide
2. in commission of said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide MUST have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act of facilitate the commission of suicide.
2. Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to offence u/s 306 IPC.

Case Law

1. Amalendu Pal Vs State of West Bengal 2010 1 SCC 707
1. Active role and certain act to facilitate commission of suicide
2. mere harassment without positive action and proximate to time of occurrence 
2. Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs State ( Govt of NCT delhi ) 2009 16 SCC 605
1. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something
2. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide.

Perjury - 193 IPC r/w 340 CrPC

 

Statue

1. 193 IPC r/w 340 CrPC

Important Points

1. Mere contradictory statements NOT itself always sufficient to justify prosecution for perjury.
2. It must establish that false statement was made INTENTIONALLY
3. Even when it is concluded that it was intentional false evidence - 
1. Court has to form opinion whether it is EXPEDIENT in the interest of Justice to Initiate an inquiry into offence of false evidence.
2. Consider overall factual matrix and probable consequences. 

Case Law

1. KTMS Mohammad & anr Vs UoI 1992 3 SCC 178
1. Para 37
1. The mere fact that a deponent has made contradictory statements at two different stages in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution for perjury under section 193 IPC 
2. But it must be established that the deponent has INTENTIONALLY  give a false statement in any stage of the judicial proceeding or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding.
3. Further, such a prosecution for perjury should be taken only if it is expedient in the interest of Justice.
2. Amarsang Nathaji Vs Hardik Harshadbhai Patel & Ors 2017 1 SCC 113
1. Offense of false evidence and offense against public justice and more specifically referred in Section 340(1) CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution.
2. Even in a case where the Court comes to the conclusion on the aspect of intentional false evidence, 
1. still the court has to form an opinion whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offense of false evidence, 
1. having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as probable consequences of such prosecution.

ADR

Date : 5th August 2021

1. Jamboard - Civil Court Jurisdiction

Date : 4th August 2021

1. Jamboard ( Multi pages )

Date : 3rd August 2021

1. Jamborad

Date : 28th July 2021

1. Jam board 
2. 

Date : 26th July 2021

1. Jamboar

 Books

1. Anirban Chakrborthy on ADR - Lexis Nexis
2. Mediation - Sriram Panchu, Adv ( Lexis Nexis)
3. O.P. Malhotra, Indu Malhotra on Arbitration (Reference)
4. Supreme Court Mediation Manual
5. Madabhushi Sridhar - ADR ( Student edition)

Passport

 

Statue 

1. Section 6(2)(f)  of Passport Act , passport authority SHALL refuse to issue a passport or travel document for visiting any foreign country, if a criminal proceeding is pending against the applicant in India. However that said provision does not provide for refusing to issue a passport for a person who intends to travel back to India. 

Important Points

1. Right to travel cannot be curtailed by refusing to renew passport on pretext of pending criminal cases
2. Passport Authorities
1. Refuse issuance of a fresh passport to a person against whom a criminal case is pending in India
2. Same rule would not apply for renewal of passport

Case Law

1. Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs D. Ramarathanm AIR 1967 SC 1836
1. U/s A21 of Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his right to travel except according to procedure established by law.
2. Petitioner right to travel cannot be curtailed on the pretext that a criminal case is pending against him by refusing to renew his passport.