Karnataka

Judicial Services Exam

CIVIL JUDGE (Junior Division)

High Court of Karnataka

Judgement
Volume - 2
 Karnataka Judiciary Services
CONTENTS
S.No. Chapter Name Page No.
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1
• Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Versus central bureau of 10
investigation
• State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Kalyan Singh and Ors 12
• Yogendra @Jogendra Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh 14
• Sau Saraswati Bai Versus Lalita Bai and Ors. 21
• Brig Sukhjeet Singh (Rets) MVC V. State of UP & Ors. 23
• Mahesh Dube Versus Shivbodh and Ors. 25
• Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Versus State of Maharashtra 27
and others
• Prof R K Vijayasarthy and Anr. Versus Sudha Seedharam 30
• State of MP Versus Dhruv Gurjar and anoTher Tinku Sharma 33
and oThers
• Sunil Kumar Gupta and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh 42
and others
• The State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Laxmi Narayan Others 46
• Manik Kutum Versus Julie Kutum 48
• Periyasami Versus S. Nallasamy 51
• State of Himanchal Pradesh and Anr. Versus Vijay Kumar @ 52
Pappu and Anr.
• Harveer singh and Anr. Versus State of UP 57
• Nisha Saifi Versus Mohd Shahid 59
• Shome Nikhil Danani Versus Tanya Banon Danani 61
• Ramswaroop Soni Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. 64
• Shir. N.k. janu, Deputy director Social forestary Division, 66
Agra and others Versus Lakshmi Chandra
• Urvashi Aggarwal And Anr. Versus Kushagr ansal and Ors. 68
• Atma Ram And Ors. V. State of Rajasthan 73
• Accused ‘X’ Versus State of Maharashtra 80
• MD. Allauddin Khan Versus The State of Bihar and Ors. 98
 • Bikash Ranjan Rout Versus State through The secretary 100
(home), government of nct of Delhi, New Delhi
• Manju Devi Versus State of Rajasthan and Anr. 101
• Kumar Ghimirey V. The State of Sikkim 106
• N. Ramamurthy Versus State by Central Bureau of 110
Investigation A.C.B Bengaluru
• S.K Miglani Versus State of NCT of Delhi 116
• Rajesh & Ors. Versus State of Haryana 120
• M/S Gati Limited Versus T. Nagarajan Piramiajee and Anr. 134
• Atul Shukla Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. 138
• Sasikala Pushpa And Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu 139
• Vikas Bhutani Versus State and Anr. 145
• Manju Sharma Versus VIPIN 148
• Prakash Jain And Ors. Versus The State of Karnataka 152
• Christopher Raj Versus K Vijay Kumar 154
• Harendra Singh Harendra Bahadur Versus The State of U.P. 157
• Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Versus State of Uttar Pradesh through 165
Secretary home, civil secretariat Lucknow and Another
• Naval Kishore Mishra Versus State of UP & Others 185

2. Civil Procedure Code 186

3. Code of Criminal Procedure 189

4. Indian Evidence 194

5. Code of Civil Procedure 195

• Gurmit Singh Bhatia Versus Kiran Kant Robinson and others 198
• Ramesh Das (DEAD) thr. Lrs. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh 202
and Ors.
• State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Shiv Dayal & Anr. 206
• S. Bhaskaran Versus Sebastian (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. 209
• Bansidhar Sharma (Since Deceased) Rep by his legal 213
Representative Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
• Ashok Kumar Kalra Versus Wing cdr. Surendra Agnihotri & 217
Ors
• N. Mohan Appellant V R. madhu Respondent 222
 • Sri Prabodh Ch. Das & Anr. VS. Versus Mahamaya Das & Ors 226
OThers.
• Kapilaben & Ors. Versus Ashok Kumar Jayanti Lal Sheth 229
Through POA Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Ors.

6. Criminal Procedure Code 240

• Manjit Singh Versus The State of Punjab and Anr. 246
• Mau ji Ram Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 249
• Kathi David rawju Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. 252
• Amir Hamza Shaikh & Ors. Versus State of Maharashtra & 256
Anr.
• Saleem Ahmed Versus State & Anr. 260
• P. Chidambaram Versus Directorate of Enforcement 263
• P. Chidambaram Versus Directorate of 273
• Enforcement
• Nevada properties Private limited Through its Directors 278
Versus State of Maharashtra and Another’s
• Guru @ Gurubaran & Ors. Versus. State rep. By inst of Police 280
• Vinubhai haribhai Malaviya and Ors. Versus The State of 283
Gujarat and Anr.
• Raju kumar sharma & Anr. Versus The State of uttar Pradesh 286
& Anr.
• State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Ubham and Others 288
• State of MP Versus Man Singh 293
• Rekha Murarka Versus The State of west Bengal and Anr. 296
• Mahipal Versus Rajesh Kumar @ Palia & Anr. 300
• New india assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Krishna Kumar Pandey 305
• Puneet Dalmia Appellant V Central bureau of Investigation 308
Respondent
 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

1. Swapan kumar Power January 4, January

chatterjee 2019 Under 4, 2019
versus central Section 311 Of The
bureau of CrPC, 1973 Should
investigation Be Invoked By The
Court Only To Meet
The Ends Of
Justice
2. State of madhya Section 482 Cr.P.C. January
pradesh versus Offence under 4, 2019
kalyan singh and Section 307 IPC
ors Cannot be Quashed
under section 482
Cr.P.C. On The
Basis of
Settlement
Between the
Parties.
3. Yogendra @ (Section 354(3) of January,
Jogendra Singh Cr. P.C. Section 302 17,2019
Versus State of IPC] Intention
Madhya Pradesh resulted into an
attack more severe
than planned which
then resulted into
Death would not
fall in rarest cases.
Of the rarest
cases.
4. Sau Saraswati Once Final Report January
Bai Versus Lalita is Submitted under 22,2019
Bai and ORS. Section 173 of the
Cr.PC Normally
Accused By Final
Report Shall Be
relegated To
1
 Approach
Magistrate for
Discharge
5. Brig Sukhjeet (Section 391 of Feb 06,
Singh (Rets) Cr.P.C.) 2019
MVC v. State of Circumstances in
UP & Ors. which Appellate
Court take can
additional
evidences depends
upon the facts and
circumstances of
each case but
cannot
be received
as disguise for a
retrial
6. Mahesh Dube Limitation of 30 February
Versus Shivbodh Days Would Not 12,2019
and Ors. Apply if Trial Court
Already Ordered
Restoration of
Possession In The
Judgement
7. Sau. Kamal [482 Cr. P.C] February
shivaji Criminal Complaints 12, 2019
pokarnekar. Cannot Be Quashed
Versus state of Merely Because
maharashtra and Allegations Appear
others To Be Of A Civil
Nature.
8. Prof r k While Exercising February
vijayasarthy and The Inherent 15,2019
anr. Versus Powers Under
sudha Section 482 of the
seedharam High court should
examine Whether

2
 The Complaint Is A
Civil Dispute
Cloaked With
Criminal Nature
9. State Of MP Section 482 Cr.P.C. February
Versus Dhruv While Exercising 19, 2019
Gurjar and powers under
another Tinku Section 482 CrPC,
Sharma and the High Court
others ought to be more
vigilant and should
Considered
relevant facts
And circumstances
under which the
accused got the
settlement
entered.
10. Sunil Kumar An Order Under February
Gupta and others Section 319 Of 27, 2019
Versus State of CrPC
Uttar Pradesh The Should Not Be
and others Only Passed The
Because First
Informant Or One
Of The Witnesses
Seeks Implicate
To Other Persons
11. The state of Heinous Serious March 5,
Madhya Pradesh Offences and 2019
Versus Laxmi Offences by Public
Narayan Others Servants Cannot
Be Quashed Under
Section 482 Of
CrPC On The
Ground That A
Compromise Is

3
 There Between
Parties.
12. Manik Kutum (Section. 125 CrPC) March
Versus Julie The High Court 07,2019
Kutum need not the
remand matter to
the Trial Court
unless there is
factual any issue
involve in the case.
13. Periyasami Mere Disclosure Of March
Versus S. Name By Some 14, 2019
Nallasamy Witnesses during
Trial Court Not
Enough To Add
persons As
Additional Accused
Under Section 319
of Code of Criminal
Procedure
14. State of (s. 357-A CrPC) March
Himanchal Adequate 15, 2019
Pradesh and Compensation
ANR. Versus To The Victim
Vijay Kumar @ Under
Pappu and ANR. The Victim
Compensation
Scheme Should Be
Determined By
"Considering The
Nature Of
Injury, The Age Of
Victim And
The Sufferings
Caused To The
Victim Or His
Family By The Act

4
 of The Accused.
15. Harveer singh Section 397 CrPC. March
and Anr. Versus 15,2019
State of UP
16. Nisha Saifi Section 125 CrPC: April 03,
versus Mohd Maintenance Right 2019
Shahid Accrues To A Wife
Against Her
Husband Since The
Inception of Her
Getting Married
17. Shome Nikhil Domestic Violence April 4,
Danani Versus Act and the 2019
Tanya Banon proceeding of
Danani Section 125 of the
Cr PC are
Independent
18. Ramswaroop (Section 173(2) of April 08,
Soni Versus The Cr.P.C.] magistrate 2019
state of Madhya cannot direct police
Pradesh & ANR. to
File charge
Sheet receipt
Closure
Report. One of
19. Shir. N.k. janu, Practice of April 10,
Deputy director Summoning of 2019
Social forestary officers to Court is
Division, agra Not proper
and others
versus lakshmi
chandra
20. Urvashi [s. 16 SRA: Article April 10,
Aggarwal And 54 Limitation Act] 2019
ANR. Versus Torpid silence of
kushagr ansal the plaintiffs in not
and ORS. resorting too a

5
 legal remedy within
a reasonable period
tantamounts yo
their abandoning
the the Agreement
21. Atma Ram And Examination of April
ORS. V. State of witnesses in the 11th, 2019
Rajasthan Absence of accused
is a curable
Irregularity
22. Accused ‘X’ Pre- Sentence April 12,
Versus State of Hearing on A 2019
Maharashtra Separate Date Not
Mandatory Section
235 (2) of CrPC-
23. MD. Allauddin [Section 482 CrPC April 15,
Khan Versus The High Court Has No 2019
State of Bihar Jurisdiction To
And ORS. Appreciate
Evidence, While A
Under Hearing A
Petition Section
482 CrPC.
24. Bikash ranjan Magistrate Cannot April 16,
rout versus Suo- moto Direct 2019
state through Further
the secretary Investigation After
(home), Discharge the
government of Accused Section
nct of delhi, new 156 (3) CrPC-
delhi
25. Manju Devi Section 311 CrPC: April 16,
Versus State of Long Duration Of A 2019
Rajasthan and Case Cannot
ANr. The Displace
Basic Requirement
Of The Ensuring

6
 Just Decision
26. Kumar Ghimirey (Sections 386, 377, April 22,
v. The State of 397 & 401 of Cr 2019
Sikkim P.C.) Enhancement
of sentence in
appeal is permitted
only by giving the
prior notice to The
Convict.
27. N. Ramamurthy (s. 389 CrPC) Legal April 26,
Versus State by principles governing 2019
Central Bureau suspension of
of Investigation conviction cannot
A.C.B Bengaluru be applied to
suspend the
sentence
28. S.K Miglani (Section 197 CrPC; April 30,
Versus State of Section 45 of IEA) 20109
NCT Of Delhi A manager of a
nationalized bank is
not a public servant
as to attract the
prior sanction
under section 197
of the Cr. P.C
29. Rajesh & ORS. Section 319 of CrPC May 1,
Versus State of Persons named in 2019
Haryana FIR, but not
charge-sheeted can
be summoned under
section 319 CrPC
even if stage of
Protest Petition is
over
30. M/S Gati Successive Bail May 06,
Limited Versus Application Should 2019
T. Nagarajan Be Placed Before

7
 Piramiajee and the Same Judge
ANR. Who Considered
the First One.
31. Atul Shukla Atul Shukla Versus May 06,
Versus The The State of 2019
State of Madhya Madhya Pradesh
Pradesh & ANR. ANR.
32. Sasikala Pushpa (Section: 340 & 482 May 07,
And Others CrPC; Section: 193 2019
versus The IPC)
State of Tamil Mere Incorrect
Nadu Statement in
Vakalatnama Not
Amount to Forgery
33. Vikas Bhutani Maintenance May 17,
Versus State Awarded To A Wife 2019
and ANR. Is not A Bounty
(Section 125 CrPC)
34. Manju Sharma Assessment of July 01,
Versus VIPIN Interim 2019
Maintenance U/S
125 of Requires
Prima Facie
Evaluation
35. Prakash Jain And Question: What are July 3,
ORS. Versus The the requirements of 2019
State of Notice for
Karnataka ‘suomoto’
enhancement of
sentence?
36. Christopher Raj High Court reverse July 05,
Versus K Vijay Acquittal Without 2019
Kumar Affording
opportunity
Of hearing to
accused or by

8
 Appointing an
Amicus Curiae.
37. Harendra Singh Plea For July 08,
Harendra Anticipatory bail 2019
Bahadur Versus Not Maintainance
The State of Before HC without
U.P. Approaching
Sessions Court,
Unless There are
‘Special Reasons’
38. Vishnu kumar How Magistrate July 09,
tiwari versus Deal With Protest 2019
state of Complaints
Uttar prah
through
Secretary home,
civil secretariat
Lucknow and
Another
39. Naval Kishore Victim need not July 10,
Mishra Versus obtain leave for" 2019
State of UP & filing appeal against
Others acquittal, it should
be dealt as a
Regular
Appeal

9
 Swapan kumar chatterjee
Versus
Central bureau of investigation
(Supreme Court)

Judgment: Hon'ble J. A.K. Sikri, Hon'ble J. S. Abdul Nazeer

Pronounced by: Hon'ble S. Abdul Nazeer, J
Date: 04 January 2019

C.B.I. filed charge sheet against the appellant and three other under section
477 (A), 471, 468 420, 120B of the IPC read with Section 5(1)(c)(d) of
prevention of corruption Act. The case was put of trial and 29 prosecution
witnesses were examined. The prosecution filed an application under Section
1 1of the CrPC for examination of handwriting expert (Mr. H.S. Tuteja), which
was allowed but he failed to appear. Prosecution again sought time and it was
granted but he again failed to appear.

The Supreme Court observed that this practice had been going on unopposed
for a period thirteen years, starting from the year 2004, However, the case
was registered in the year 1983 and 2 Prosecution witnesses have already been
examined but despite the fact that multiple applications have been filed to
summon that handwriting expert and all have been allowed but prosecution ha
failed to procure the attendance of handwriting expert. The court also
observed that Prosecution evidence was closed long back and reason for non-
examining of expert witness is not satisfactory.

Therefore, summoning the witness at belated stage would cause great

prejudice to the accused and should not be allowed. Similarly, the court should
not encourage the filing of successive applications for recall of a witness
under section 31 1 of the CrPC.

10
The First part of Section 31 1of the CrPC, is permissive and gives
discretionary authority to criminal courts and enables it at any stage of the
inquiry, trial or other proceedings of the code to. act in three ways-
1. Summon any person as a witness; or
2. To examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as witness; or
3. To recall and re-examine any person already examined.

The Second Part, which is mandatory, imposing an obligation on the court-

1. To summon and examine, or
2. To recall and re-examine any such person, if his evidence appears to be
essential to the just decision of the case.

Therefore, the power conferred under Section 31 1of the CrPC, should be
invoked only to meet the ends of justice and same is to be exercised only for
strong and valid reasons. Under Section 31 1of the CrPC, the court has wide
power to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination,
which is imperative in the interest of Justice.

The Court held that the power should be exercised with great caution and
circumspection and not be exercised if the court is of the view that the
application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.

11
 State of madhya pradesh
Versus
Kalyan singh and ors.

Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court

Hon'ble D.Y. Chandrachud & M.R. Shah JJ.
Pronounced by: Justice M.R. Shah
Dated: January 4th, 2019.

* Non compoundable offences cannot be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C.

solely on the basis of settlement between the parties,
* State, being an interested party, can refuse to compound an offence even
when the complainant has made a settlement with the accused to
compound it.

The Respondent No.5 (original Complainant) filed a complaint against

Respondent Nos. I to 4 (the original accused) for the offences under Sections
307, 294 read with Section 34 of the PC. The original accused filed a bail
application which was rejected by the Ld. Sessions Court and thereafter, the
original accused approached the High Court by filing the miscellaneous criminal
case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and requested to quash the criminal proceeding
on the ground that the accused and the original complainant have settled the
dispute amicably.

The original complainant submitted affidavit on this behalf and submitted

that he have no objection for dropping the criminal proceedings.

The High Court in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. quashed the
criminal proceedings against the original accused under Sections 307, 294

12
read with 34 IPC, solely on the ground of settlement and that the original
complainant does not want to prosecute against the accused. But the same was
opposed by the prosecution.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the
High Court, he State of Madhya Pradesh preferred the present appeal before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Whether the High Court rightly quashed the criminal proceeding under
sections 307 294 read with 34 IPC by using inherent power given under section
482 Cr. P.C.?

The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:

* One of the accused person was reported to be a hardcore criminal having
criminal antecedents.
* The offences under sections 307, 294 read with section 34 IPC are now
compoundable and are of serious nature.
* The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred Gulab Das and Ors. . State of
Madhya Pradesh (2011) 12 SCALE 625, In which, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed and held that, despite any settlement between the
complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under section 307 of IPC cannot be quashed
as offence under section 307 is a now compoundable offence

The Hon'ble Supreme Court after observing the facts and circumstance of
the case and looking into the seriousness of the allegations held that:
1. The High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the criminal
proceeding for the offence under Sections 307, 294 read with Section
34 of IPC, solely on the ground that the original complainant and the
accused have settled the dispute and the same cannot sustained thus,
same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
2. Consequently, the said criminal proceedings were ordered to be proceeded
further in accordance with law and on its own merits.

13
Intention resulted into an attack more severe than planned which
then resulted into death would not fall in rare of the rarest
cases.
Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh
3 Judges Bench
Hon'ble S.A. Bobde, R. Subhash Reddy and L. Nageswara Rao JJ.
Dated: January, 17, 2019

1. Concept of mitigating factors in the area of death penalty must receive a

liberal and expansive construction by the courts in accord with the
sentencing policy writ large in Section 354(3).
2. A real and abiding concern for the dignity of human life postulates
resistance to taking a life through law's instrumentality. That ought not
to be done save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is
unquestionably foreclosed.
3. If there is a pattern discernible across both the cases then a second
conviction for murder would warrant the imposition of a death sentence.

In this case the deceased Ruby was married to one Mr. Sanjay Gupta and had
two issues from the wedlock. The Appellant coveted her and the husband
suspected an affair between his wife - the deceased and the Appellant and
harassed her accusing her of the same. The deceased thereafter came to live
with her maternal uncle. The Appellant pressurized the deceased's father
(PW 8) for summoning her to Porsa (a place) and threatened him with dire
consequences if his demand was not fulfilled.

On the ominous night of summer, the deceased and her family members went
to their respective rooms and retired for the night. The doors were kept open
since it was summer. There was light in the rooms and the courtyard from
some bulbs. The Appellant snuck into the room of the deceased and warned

14
her "though she doesn't want to live with him he is not going to let her live
with anybody else". The father of the deceased, Dataram (PW 8) woke up on
hearing this and saw the Appellant running away after throwing acid on his
daughter. The deceased started screaming, whereupon other family members
tried to save her, the Appellant then, threw acid on the other members of the
family, burning and injuring all of them. In the attack, the deceased sustained
burn injuries to the extent of 90% all over her body while others also
sustained burn injuries. In the incident the grandmother of the deceased Smt.
Chandrakala (PW 3) and one Raju nephew (PW 7) of the deceased and Janu
(PW 4) brother of the deceased were also injured. Dying declaration of the
decdeased was recorded which pointed out the accused as culprit Also dying
declarations made by the injured were consistence with the dying declaration
of the deceased. Though the injured survived the injuries.

The Appellant committed this crime when he was out on bail in another case
wherein he has been convicted for murder and his sentence has been upheld.
In that case the appellant was charged along with co-accused one Kiran Nurse
for committing the murder of one Laxmi Narayan alias Laxman Singh in the
intervening night of 27.07. 1994 and 28.07. 1994. And this incident occurred
on 21.07.2013.

The Sessions Court awarded the Appellant death sentence under Section 302
of the IPC and also, convicted him for disfiguring and injuring these people by
throwing acid under Section 326(A) of IPC.

By an order of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, dated 12.

12.2014 confirming the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the
Sessions Court, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) vide its judgment in Sessions
Trial No.388/2013 dated 24.07.2014. The Appellant has been convicted under
sections 302, 326(A) and 460 of IPC and awarded capital punishment of death
sentence, life sentence on three counts and fine of Rs.25,000/-each, and ten
years' R.I. and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulations, respectively. This
death sentence has been confirmed by the High Court on a reference under

15