Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 22 July 2014

Something important for harassed ones

1) perjury application has to be decided SEPARATELY (i.e. neither first nor at the last)

ruling -

(a) Kenneth Desa s/o Late John Desa vs Gopal s/o Leeladhar Narang, (Bombay HC)

provisions - civil manual chapter 19 & criminal manual chapter xxx

perjury application has to be decided SEPARATELY.

it can NOT be decided along with the main case - may be civil / criminal.

i wonder how the provisions of civil manual chapter 19 and criminal manual chapter xxx are ignored frequently.

2) application u/s crpc 340 + 195 is NOT the ONLY remedy

ruling -

(a) A. R. Antulay vs Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak And Another on 16 February, 1984 - SC

(b) Shriram Krishnappa Asegaonkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 24 July, 1986 - Bombay HC

if one is caught in the offense of perjury, crpc 340 + 195 is NOT the ONLY remedy.

private complaint u/s IPC 417 can be filed SEPARATELY for cheating the hon. court

so anybody can set criminal law in motion r/w the provisions of crpc. 195 to 199.

3) ipc 211 private complaint can be filed WITHOUT WAITING if someone gives false complaint against you

ruling -

(a) M. L. Sethi vs R. P. Kapur & Anr on 23 September, 1966 - SC

BEFORE concluding the false 498a case, husband can file ipc 211 against wife if she files FALSE 498a

and apart from 498a, this is applicable to ALL the sections of the IPC .

no need to wait till court gives final verdict in 498a case.

only care to be taken is -

* private complaint u/s ipc 211 has to be filed BEFORE police files charge sheet in court u/s crpc 173

* private complaint u/s ipc 211 has to be filed BEFORE u approach any court for Anticipatory Bail.

read very carefully & understand - imp. points highlighted in attachments

Reply Follow

9 Replies

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 22 July 2014

rulings for point no. 1 are provided above

rulings for point no. 2 are as follows :

HAVE FUN

Attached File : 759862629 1) a. r. antulay vs ramdas sriniwas nayak and another on 16 february, 1984 - locus standi.pdf, 759862629 2) shriram krishnappa asegaonkar vs state of maharashtra and anr. on 24 july, 1986.pdf downloaded: 264 times

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 22 July 2014

rulings for point no. 3 are as follows :

HAVE MORE FUN

Attached File : 759862629 3) m. l. sethi vs r. p. kapur & anr on 23 september, 1966 - 211 can be filed.pdf downloaded: 158 times

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 29 July 2014

Supreme Court of India

Abdul Rehman & Ors vs K.M.Anees-Ul-Haq on 14 November, 2011

https://www.indiankanoon.com/doc/1001315/

Once it is held that bail proceedings amounted to judicial proceedings the same being anterior in point of time to the taking of cognizance by the Metropolitan Magistrate, there is no escape from the conclusion that any offence punishable under Section 211 IPC could be taken cognizance of only at the instance of the Court in relation to whose proceedings the same was committed or who finally dealt with that case.

thus,

u can file IPC 211 - BEFORE u apply for AB (i.e. BEFORE the matter goes to any court.)

this is a good counter against a false 498a.

i wonder, how come nobody is interested in this thread !!