TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY

** VOL. XVI — PART 07 — JULY 2021 **

COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY

HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI
No.30/95, P.S.K.R. Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028
Phone Nos. 044– 24958595 / 96 / 97 / 98 Fax: (044) 24958595
Website: www.tnsja.tn.nic.in E-Mail: [email protected]/[email protected]

REGIONAL CENTRE, COIMBATORE REGIONAL CENTRE, MADURAI

No.251, Scheme Road, Race Course, Alagar Koil Road, K. Pudur,
COIMBATORE, MADURAI,
Tamil Nadu, India. PIN: 641 018 Tamil Nadu, India. PIN: 625 002
Telephone No: (0422) 2222610, 710 Telephone No: (0452) 2560807, 811
E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CASES ................................................................................................ I
SUPREME COURT - CIVIL CASES ...................................................................... 1
Sukhbir Vs. Ajit Singh [2021 SCC Online SC 357] .....................................................1

A.R. Madana Gopal & Ors. Vs. M/s. Ramnath Publications Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [2021 SCC
Online SC 300] ......................................................................................................2

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pearl Beverages Ltd. [2021 SCC
Online SC 309] ......................................................................................................3

Ripudaman Singh Vs. Tikka Maheshwar Chand [2021 SCC Online SC 457] .................4

Deccan Paper Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Regency Mahavir Properties & Ors. [2020 (6) MLJ
524] ......................................................................................................................5

SUPREME COURT - CRIMINAL CASES .............................................................. 6

Vinod Dua Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2021 SCC Online SC 414] ................................6

Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [2021 SCC Online SC 367] .........7

Satbir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana [2021 (3) MLJ (Crl) 46 (SC)] ......................8

Jayamma & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka [2021 (2) MLJ (CRL) 550 (SC)] .................. 10

Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot Vs. State of Gujarat [2021 SCC Online SC 347]............ 11

HIGH COURT - CIVIL CASES ........................................................................... 12

S. Saraladevi Surana Vs. G.S. Sundararaj & Ors. CDJ 2021 MHC 2974 ..................... 12

Manidurai Vs. Vijaya Rengan & Anr. [CDJ 2021 MHC 2789] .................................... 13

D. Sivakumar Vs. Parimala [CDJ 2021 MHC 2683] .................................................. 14

Abdul Sathar Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai
& Ors. [CDJ 2021 MHC 1193] ............................................................................... 15

Johrilal Chowdhary (Died) & Ors. Vs. D. Shankar Chettiar [CDJ 2021 MHC 2682] ..... 16

T.K. Kulandaivelu Vs. K.P. Nallusamy [(2021) 4 MLJ 583] ....................................... 17

TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

N. Govindarajan & Anr. Vs. S. Logeswari, Rep. by Power of Attorney, S.L. Arokiyasamy
[(2021) 5 MLJ 48] ................................................................................................ 18

V. Ramasamy Vs. L. Priya @ Priya Bhuvaneswari [2021 (4) MLJ 29] ....................... 19

Saroja & Anr. Vs. Parvathy & Ors. [2021 (4) MLJ 597] ........................................... 20

Subbaiya Gounder Vs. Velathal & Ors. [CDJ 2021 MHC 118] ................................... 22

HIGH COURT – CRIMINAL CASES ................................................................... 23

Vidya Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Madhavaram, Chennai & Another
CDJ 2021 MHC 3021 ............................................................................................ 23

Senthil Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of House Officer, Kodumodi Police Station, Erode &
Anr. [CDJ 2021 MHC 2981]................................................................................... 24

Kanagaraj Vs. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Kottur Police Station, Coimbatore
[CDJ 2021 MHC 2980] .......................................................................................... 25

Irfan Vs. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Krishnagiri [CDJ 2021 MHC
3027] .................................................................................................................. 26

Sadam Hussain Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Chennai [CDJ 2021 MHC 1634]
.......................................................................................................................... 27

State by the Inspector of Police, Shankar Nagar Police Station, Chennai & Anr. Vs. M.
Dhamodaran @ Prakash & Anr. [CDJ 2021 MHC 2826] ........................................... 28

Union of India Rep. by the Inspector of Police, National Investigation Agency, Chennai
Vs. Vivekanandan @ Vivek @ Raja @ Balan & Anr. [CDJ 2021 MHC 2825] .............. 29

S. Padma Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government [2021-2-
L.W.(Crl) 59] ....................................................................................................... 30

Ramesh Vs. State Rep. by its All Women Police Station, Cuddalore [CDJ 2021 MHC
2636] .................................................................................................................. 31

State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai Vs. Dr. M. Manikandan [CDJ 2021 MHC
2969] .................................................................................................................. 32
 TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

TABLE OF CASES

SUPREME COURT - CIVIL CASES

S. DATE OF
CAUSE TITLE CITATION SHORT NOTES
NO. JUDGMENT
Section 73, Indian Contract
Act, 1872
Section 21, Specific Relief
Act, 1963
Section 6, Land Acquisition
Act, 1888
Sukhbir 2021 SCC Where the contract for no fault of
1 Vs. Online SC 30-04-2021 the Plaintiff becomes impossible,
Ajit Singh 357 Section 21 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 enables award of
compensation in lieu and
substitution of the specific
performance. The Decree for
compensation is passed as an
alternate Decree.
Section 230A, Income Tax
Act, 1961
Section 10-A, Specific Relief
Act, 1963
A.R. Madana Once a suit for specific
Gopal & Ors. performance has been filed, any
Vs. 2021 SCC delay as a result of the Court
2 M/s. Ramnath Online SC 09-04-2021 process cannot be put against
Publications 300 the Plaintiff as a matter of law in
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. decreeing specific performance.
However, it is within the
discretion of the Court, as to
whether some additional amount
ought or ought not to be paid by
the plaintiff once a decree of
I
 TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

specific performance is passed in

its favour even at the appellate
stage.
Section 185, Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988
Section 17, Consumer
Protection Act, 1986
IFFCO Tokio The requirement under Section
General 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
Insurance 1988 is not to be conflated to
2021 SCC
Company Ltd. what constitutes driving under
Online SC 12-04-2021
3 Vs. the influence of alcohol under the
309
Pearl policy of insurance in an Own
Beverages Ltd. Damage Claim. Such a claim
must be considered on the basis
of the nature of the accident,
evidence as to drinking before or
during the travel, the impact on
the driver and the very case set
up by the parties.
Section 17(2)(vi),
Ripudaman Registration Act, 1908
Singh 2021 SCC The compromise was between
Vs. Online SC the two brothers consequent to
4 06-07-2021
Tikka 457 death of their father. No right
Maheshwar was being created in praesenti
Chand for the first time, thus
registration is not required.
Deccan Paper
Mills Company
Section 31, Specific Relief
Ltd.
Act, 1963
Vs. AIR 2020 19-08-2020
5 Action instituted under Section
Regency SC 4047
31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
Mahavir
is not an action in rem.
Properties &
Ors.

II
 TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

SUPREME COURT - CRIMINAL CASES

S. DATE OF
CAUSE TITLE CITATION SHORT NOTES
NO. JUDGMENT
Sections 124A, 268, 501 and
505, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Every Journalist will be entitled to
protection in terms of Kedar Nath
Vinod Dua 2021 SCC Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (1962)
Vs. Online SC Supp. 2 SCR 76, as every
1 03-06-2021
Union of 414 prosecution under Sections 124A
India & Ors. and 505 of the IPC must be in strict
conformity with scope and ambit of
said Sections as explained in, and
completely in tune with law laid
down in Kedar Nath Singh.
Sections 155(2) and 397(2),
Criminal Procedure Code,
1973
Sections 504 and 506, Indian
Penal Code, 1860
It is well settled that the trial Court
Sanjay
while considering the discharge
Kumar Rai
2021 SCC application is not to act as a mere
Vs.
2 Online SC 07-05-2021 post office. The Court has to sift
State of
367 through the evidence in order to
Uttar
find out whether there are
Pradesh &
sufficient grounds to try the
Anr.
suspect. The court has to consider
the broad probabilities, total effect
of evidence and documents
produced and the basic infirmities
appearing in the case and so on.
2021 (3) Sections 306 and 304-B,
Satbir Singh
MLJ (Crl) Indian Penal Code, 1860
3 & Anr. 28-05-2021
46 (SC) The High Court and Trial Court
Vs.
have not committed any error in

III
 TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

State of convicting the appellants under

Haryana Section 304-B, IPC as the
appellants failed to discharge the
burden under Section 113-B,
Evidence Act. The Supreme Court
held that the offence under Section
306, IPC is not made out.
Power of the High Court under
Section 378, Criminal
Jayamma &
2021 (2) Procedure Code, 1973
Anr.
MLJ (CRL) The power of scrutiny exercisable
4 Vs. 07-05-2021
550 (SC) by the High Court under Section
State of
378, Cr.P.C should not be routinely
Karnataka
invoked where the view formed by
the trial court was a ‘possible view’.
Appreciation of evidence
The omissions like not seizing the
Kalabhai motorcycle and also not seizing the
Hamirbhai gold chain of one of the victims, by
2021 SCC
Kachhot themselves, are no ground to
5 Online SC 28-04-2021
Vs. discredit the testimony of key
347
State of witnesses who were examined on
Gujarat behalf of the prosecution, whose
say is consistent, natural and
trustworthy.

IV
 TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

HIGH COURT - CIVIL CASES

S. DATE OF
CAUSE TITLE CITATION SHORT NOTES
NO. JUDGMENT
Article 54, Limitation Act, 1963
The Plaintiff failed to pay the balance
sale consideration within the time
S. Saraladevi
fixed as per the agreement for sale.
Surana
CDJ 2021 The Plaintiff did not take any step to
Vs.
1 MHC 01-07-2021 perform his part of the contract. The
G.S.
2974 delay in proceeding against the
Sundararaj &
Defendants clearly establishes that
Ors.
the Plaintiff was not ready and willing
to perform his part of the contract at
any point of time.
Fixing of Monthly Income in
absence of proof
Manidurai
CDJ 2021 The Claimant was a mason. In the
Vs.
2 MHC 24-06-2021 absence of proof of income, the
Vijaya Rengan
2789 monthly income as fixed by the
& Anr.
Tribunal at Rs.4500/- per month,
was held to be reasonable.
Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 25,
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
No case has been made out to invoke
Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
D. Sivakumar Marriage Act, as no witness or
CDJ 2021
Vs. oral/documentary evidence has been
3 MHC 11-06-2021
Parimala produced by the Appellant/wife in
2683
support of her allegations of cruelty
against the Respondent/husband.
Permanent alimony or maintenance
to wife cannot be granted if the
petition for divorce is dismissed.

V
 TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Abdul Sathar
Section 18, Protection of
Vs.
Human Rights Act, 1993
The Principal
Recommendation of State Human
Secretary to CDJ 2021
4 Government, MHC 05-02-2021 Rights Commission under Section 18
of the Act is binding on the
Home 1193
Government or Authority. The
Department,
Adjudicatory Order is legally and
Chennai &
immediately enforceable.
Ors.
Section 58, Indian Evidence Act,
1872 r/w Order XII, Rule 6 and
Order XV, Rule 1, Code of Civil
Johrilal Procedure, 1908
Chowdhary Section 59, Transfer of Property
CDJ 2021
(Died) & Ors. Act, 1882
5 MHC 11-06-2021
Vs. In light of the Defendant’s admission
2682
D. Shankar of borrowal, the trial Court ought to
Chettiar have decreed the suit filed by the
Plaintiffs. The deposit of title deeds
of the property, being an equitable
mortgage, need not be registered.
Section 118, Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881
T.K.
Defendant had not rebutted the
Kulandaivelu
2021 (4) presumption drawn against him
6 Vs. 30-04-2021
MLJ 583 under Section 118, NI Act, as no
K.P.
documentary evidence has been
Nallusamy
adduced, or witness examined to
support his contention.
N. Tenancy Laws – Eviction
Govindarajan Petition – Strike off – Article
& Anr. 227, Constitution of India, 1950
Vs. After having been failed before all
2021 (5)
7 S. Logeswari, 04-03-2021 the courts, the respondent again
MLJ 48
Rep. by filed eviction petition on the ground
Power of of wilful default and denial of title for
Attorney, S.L. the very same premises. It is clear
Arokiyasamy abuse of process of law.
VI
 TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Sections 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) and

28, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Although the allegation of cruelty
V. Ramasamy
and desertion has been found
Vs.
against the Appellant, the fact that
L. Priya @ 2021 (4)
8 26-04-2021 the Appellant and Respondent are
Priya MLJ 29
living separately for the past 25 long
Bhuvaneswari
years, and that mediation efforts
undertaken also proved to be of no
avail, would compel the Court to
grant the decree of divorce.
Section 175, The Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988
Rule 2(c), Tamil Nadu Motor
Vehicles Accident Claims
Saroja & Anr. Tribunal Rules, 1989
Vs. 2021 (4) Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred
9 01-06-2021
Parvathy & MLJ 597 under Section 175 of Motor Vehicles
Ors. Act, to entertain any question
relating to claim for compensation.
Dependency and not Legal Heirship
Certificate is the basis for entitlement
to compensation.
Section 6, Hindu Succession
Act, 1956
Section 73, Indian Evidence Act,
1872
Subbaiya First Appellate Court has erroneously
Gounder held that the suit properties are self-
CDJ 2021
10 Vs. 19-01-2021 acquired properties of the deceased
MHC 118
Velathal & and that Will executed by the
Ors. deceased is not a true document.
Plaintiff’s claim is rejected as
although the Will came into force in
1987, present suit was laid only in
2001.

VII
 TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

HIGH COURT - CRIMINAL CASES

S. DATE OF
CAUSE TITLE CITATION SHORT NOTES
NO. JUDGMENT
Vidya
Vs.
Sections 239, 397 and 401,
The State
Criminal Procedure Code,
Rep. by the
CDJ 2021 1973
1 Inspector of 06-07-2021
MHC 3021 Probative value of the evidence
Police,
need not be gone into at the
Madhavaram,
stage of framing of charges.
Chennai &
Anr.
Senthil Kumar
Section 200, Criminal
& Anr.
Procedure Code, 1973
Vs.
The practice of taking
The State of CDJ 2021
2 06-07-2021 cognizance through “Rubber
House Officer, MHC 2981
Stamp” orders under Sections
Kodumudi
200 and 204, Cr.P.C is
Police Station,
deprecated.
Erode & Anr.
Kanagaraj Section 374 (2), Criminal
Vs. Procedure Code, 1973
The State Not sending the Statements
Rep. by CDJ 2021 recorded under Section 164,
3 06-07-2021
Inspector of MHC 2980 Cr.P.C., immediately to the Court
Police, Kottur is only a defect committed by the
Police Station, I.O, and is not fatal to the case
Coimbatore of the prosecution.
Section 164(5), Criminal
Irfan Procedure Code, 1973
Vs. Sections 5(a)(i) and 6,
The Inspector POCSO Act, 2012
CDJ 2021
4 of Police, All 05-07-2021 The statement of the victim
MHC 3027
Women Police recorded under Section 164(5)
Station, Cr.P.C is not a substantive piece
Krishnagiri of evidence. It can be used for
corroboration or contradiction.
VIII
 TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Appreciation of evidence
Prosecution has failed to prove
its case beyond all reasonable
Sadam
doubt, and the Trial Court had
Hussain
erred in convicting the
Vs.
CDJ 2021 05-03-2021 Appellant/Accused on the basis
5 State by The
MHC 1634 of uncorroborated and doubtful
Inspector of
evidence of P.W.1, which is in
Police,
conflict with the other evidence
Chennai
and thereby the
Appellant/Accused is entitled to
the benefit of doubt.
State Rep. by
Sections 302 and 309,
the Inspector
Indian Penal Code, 1860
of Police,
As held in Union of India Vs. V.
Shankar
Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors.,
Nagar Police
(2016) 7 SCC 1, the Court can fix
Station, CDJ 2021
6 28-06-2021 such terms of imprisonment in a
Chennai & MHC 2826
given case for ensuring that
Anr.
statutory remissions and
Vs.
commutations do not inure to
M.Dhamodara
the advantage of a convict
n @ Prakash
prisoner.
& Anr.
Union of
India, Rep. by
the Inspector
Section 21, National
of Police,
Investigation Agency Act,
National
2008
Investigation
CDJ 2021 The statutory right of a prisoner
7 Agency, 28-06-2021
MHC 2825 to be released on default bail
Chennai
under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C
Vs.
shall not be exercised in a
Vivekanandan
cavalier manner.
@ Vivek @
Raja @ Balan
& Anr.

IX
 TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Right of convicts to contact

family members
If the convicts are not permitted
to have conversation with their
S. Padma
grieving family members, it
Vs.
would amount to violation of
State of Tamil 2021-2-
Article 14, 19 and 21 of the
8 Nadu, Rep. by L.W. (Crl) 17-06-2021
Constitution of India. Authorities
the Secretary 59
are directed to videograph the
to
conversation, and if any
Government
conversation apart from family
matters are discussed, the
authorities are at liberty to
disconnect the call.
Sections 376 and 417,
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Ramesh
Section 374(2), Criminal
Vs.
Procedure Code, 1973
State Rep. by CDJ 2021
9 14-06-2021 False promise itself has no
its All Women MHC 2636
immediate relevance and also
Police Station,
does not bear direct nexus to the
Cuddalore
decision of the prosecutrix to
engage in the sexual act.
Sections 417, 376, 313, 323
and 506(i), IPC r/w 67A,
Information Technology
State Rep. by Act, 2000
the Inspector Section 482, Criminal
of Police, Procedure Code, 1973
CDJ 2021
10 Chennai 02-07-2021 The seizure and verification are
MHC 2969
Vs. imminent to complete the chain
Dr. M. of events with conclusive
Manikandan evidence. Police custody of the
Respondent granted, to find the
whereabouts of material
evidence concealed by him.

X
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

SUPREME COURT - CIVIL CASES

Sukhbir Vs. Ajit Singh [2021 SCC Online SC 357]

Date of Judgment: 30-04-2021

Section 73, Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Section 21, Specific Relief Act, 1963
— Sections 6 and 21, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Specific Performance of
Contract/Sale Agreement

Judgment and Decree for specific performance passed by the trial Court was
modified by the High Court. The Supreme Court made a reference Jagdish
Singh v. Natthu Singh, 1992 1 SCC 647, wherein it was held that, “Where
the contract for no fault of the Plaintiff becomes impossible, Section 21 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables award of compensation in lieu and
substitution of the specific performance. Ends of justice will be served if the
Plaintiff is awarded the entire amount of compensation determined under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 together with interest and solatium.” The
Supreme Court, thus held that, “Plaintiff shall be entitled to the entire
amount of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
together with interest and solatium.”

******

1
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

A.R. Madana Gopal & Ors. Vs. M/s. Ramnath Publications Pvt. Ltd.
& Anr. [2021 SCC Online SC 300]
Date of Judgment: 09-04-2021

Section 10A, Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Suit for Specific Performance of
Contract — Ground of delay or laches

The Supreme Court, relying on its own precedents*, held that, “A suit for
specific performance cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of delay or
laches. However, an exception to this rule is, where an immovable property
is to be sold within a certain period, time being of the essence, and it is not
found that owing to some default on the part of the plaintiff, the sale could
not take place within the stipulated time. Once a suit for specific performance
has been filed, any delay as a result of the Court process cannot be put
against the plaintiff as a matter of law in decreeing specific performance.
However, it is within the discretion of the Court, regard being had to the
facts of each case, as to whether some additional amount ought or ought
not to be paid by the plaintiff once a decree of specific performance is passed
in his favour even at the appellate stage.”

*
See also
• Ferrodous Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. P. Gopirathnam (Dead) & Ors. [2020 SCC OnLine SC
825]
• Nirmala Anand Vs. Advent Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. [(2002) 8 SCC 146]

*****

2
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pearl Beverages

Ltd. [2021 SCC Online SC 309]
Date of Judgment: 12-04-2021

Section 185, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 17, Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 — Insurance Claim — Exclusion Clause

The insurance claim for a car, completely damaged in an accident, was

repudiated by the insurance company based on the Exclusion Clause in the
Contract of Insurance, under which the insurer was not liable if the person
driving the vehicle was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.
The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that
the insurer is not entitled to invoke the Exclusion Clause, as there was no
material to establish that the driver of the vehicle was under the influence
of intoxicating liquor within the meaning of the Exclusion Clause.

In deciding the Appeal against the Order of the NCDRC, the Supreme Court
delved into whether the driver was indeed intoxicated by consuming alcohol.
The Supreme Court observed that, “where there is no scientific material, in
the form of test results available, as in the case before us, it may not disable
the insurer from establishing a case for exclusion… A consumer, under the
[Consumer Protection] Act, can succeed, only on the basis of proved
deficiency of service. … If the deficiency is not established, having regard to
the explicit terms of the contract, the consumer must fail.” The Supreme
Court held that the NCDRC had erred in conflating the requirement under
Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, with that under the Exclusion Clause
in the contract of insurance, and thus set aside the impugned Order.

*****
3
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Ripudaman Singh Vs. Tikka Maheshwar Chand [2021 SCC Online

SC 457]
Date of Judgment: 06-07-2021

Section 17(2)(vi), Registration Act, 1908 — Right — Title — Interest of

Parties

While deciding whether a compromise decree requires registration under

Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
made a reference to Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major & Ors., (1995) 5 SCC
709, wherein it was held that, “the Court must enquire whether a document
has recorded unqualified and unconditional words of present demise of right,
title and interest in the property and included the essential terms of the
same; if the document, including a compromise memo, extinguishes the
rights of one and seeks to confer right, title or interest in praesenti in favour
of the other, relating to immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 and
upwards, the document or record or compromise memo shall be
compulsorily registered.”

In view of the enunciation of law in Bhoop Singh’s case, the Supreme Court
held that, “the judgment and decree of the High Court holding that the
decree requires compulsory registration is erroneous in law. The compromise
was between the two brothers’ consequent to death of their father and no
right was being created in praesenti for the first time, thus not requiring
compulsory registration”. Consequently, the Appeal was allowed and the Suit
was decreed.
*****

4
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Deccan Paper Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Regency Mahavir Properties

& Ors. [2020 (6) MLJ 524]
Date of Judgment: 19-08-2020

Section 31, Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Suit for Declaration and Cancellation
— Cancellation of Deed by Executant and Non-Executants — Procedure

The Supreme Court held that, “when it comes to cancellation of a deed by

an executant to the document, such person can approach the Court under
Section 31, Specific Relief Act, 1963, but when it comes to cancellation of a
deed by a non-executant, the non-executant must approach the Court under
Section 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963. Cancellation of the very same deed,
therefore, by a non-executant would be an action in personam since a suit
has to be filed under Section 34. However, cancellation of the same deed by
an executant of the deed, under Section 31, would somehow convert the
suit into a suit in rem. All these anomalies only highlight the impossibility of
holding that an action instituted under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 is an action in rem.” Thus, the Appeal was dismissed.

*****

5
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

SUPREME COURT - CRIMINAL CASES

Vinod Dua Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2021 SCC Online SC 414]
Date of Judgment: 03-06-2021

Section 160, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 124A, 268, 501 and
505, Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Supreme Court held, “… a citizen has a right to criticize or comment

upon the measures undertaken by the Government and its functionaries, so
long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government
established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder; and that
it is only when the words or expressions have pernicious tendency or
intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that
Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must step in.” The Supreme Court further
held that, “can at best be termed as expression of disapprobation of actions
of the Government and its functionaries so that prevailing situation could be
addressed quickly and efficiently. They were certainly not made with the
intent to incite people or showed tendency to create disorder or disturbance
of public peace by resort to violence.” Writ Petition was allowed.

******

6
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Sanjay Kumar Rai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [2021 SCC
Online SC 367]
Date of Judgment: 07-05-2021

Sections 155(2) and 397(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 –– Powers of

revision

The Hon’ble Supreme Court reflecting upon the decision in Union of India v.
Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4, observed that, “it is well settled that
the trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a
mere post office. The Court has to sift through the evidence in order to find
out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to
consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents
produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. Likewise,
the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in
appropriate cases, if need be.” The Supreme Court held that, “orders framing
charges or refusing discharge are neither interlocutory nor final in nature
and are therefore not affected by the bar of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C … In
the present case, the High Court has committed jurisdictional error by not
entertaining the revision petition on merits and overlooking the fact that
‘discharge’ is a valuable right provided to the accused.”

*****

7
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Satbir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana [2021 (3) MLJ (Crl) 46
(SC)]
Date of Judgment: 28-05-2021

Sections 306 and 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 113B, Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 — rebuttable presumption of causality

[1] Whether the use of the phrase ‘soon before’ in Section 304B, IPC, is
construed to mean ‘immediately before’
[2] Whether a pigeonhole approach in categorizing death as homicidal or
suicidal or accidental could be done in cases of Sections 304B and 306 IPC

In dealing with the above-mentioned issues, the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

looking into a catena of decisions* categorically held that, “[A] Section 304-
B, IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the
social evil of bride burning and dowry demand, [B] The prosecution must at
first establish the existence of the necessary ingredients for constituting an
offence under Section 304-B, IPC. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the
rebuttable presumption of causality, provided under Section 113-B, Evidence
Act operates against the accused, [C] The phrase “soon before” as appearing
in Section 304-B, IPC cannot be construed to mean ‘immediately before’. The
prosecution must establish existence of “proximate and live link” between
the dowry death and cruelty or harassment for dowry demand by the
husband or his relatives, [D] Section 304-B, IPC does not take a pigeonhole
approach in categorizing death as homicidal or suicidal or accidental.” The
Supreme Court thus set aside the conviction and sentence under Section
306, IPC.
*
See Also
• Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana [(2011) 11 SCC 359]

8
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

• Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company [(2018) 9 SCC
1]
• State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah [2020 SCC Online SC 412]
• Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 207]
• Major Singh v. State of Punjab [(2015) 5 SCC 201
• Maya Devi v. State of Haryana, (2015) 17 SCC 405
• Shanti v. State of Haryana [(1991) 1 SCC 371]
• Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2015) 6 SCC 477]
• Wair Chand v. State of Haryana [(1989) 1 SCC 244]

****

9
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Jayamma & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka [2021 (2) MLJ (CRL) 550
(SC)]
Date of Judgment: 07-05-2021

Power of the High Court to grant leave under Section 378, Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973

[1] Whether the High Court erred in reversing the findings of the trial Court
in exercise of its powers under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
[2] Whether the prosecution has successfully established that the deceased
died a homicidal death at the hands of the appellants

The Supreme Court while deciding on the above-mentioned issues, held that,
“The power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court under Section 378,
Cr.P.C should not be routinely invoked where the view formed by the trial
court was a ‘possible view’.” The Apex Court further elaborated that,
“…Unless the High Court finds that there is complete misreading of the
material evidence which has led to miscarriage of justice, the view taken by
the trial court which can also possibly be a correct view, need not be
interfered with. This self-restraint doctrine, of course, does not denude the
High Court of its powers to re-appreciate the evidence, including in an appeal
against acquittal and arrive at a different firm finding of fact.” Appellants
were acquitted. Appeals were allowed.

*****

10
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Kalabhai Hamirbhai Kachhot Vs. State of Gujarat [2021 SCC

Online SC 347]
Date of Judgment: 28-04-2021

Appeal Against Conviction — Murder Trial — Appreciation of Evidences —

Benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C

The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon its previous decisions in Manohar
& Anr. v. State of U. P., (2011) 4 SCC 324 and State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Naresh & Ors., 4 (2002) 7 SCC 606, held that, “evidence of injured witness
cannot be brushed aside without assigning cogent reasons. In all criminal
cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of
witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory
due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror
at the time of occurrence. Prosecution has proved the case against all the
Appellants/Accused beyond reasonable doubt. The omissions like not seizing
the motorcycle and also not seizing the gold chain of one of the victims, by
themselves, are no ground to discredit the testimony of key witnesses who
were examined on behalf of the prosecution, whose say is consistent, natural
and trustworthy.” Appeals were dismissed.

*****

11
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

HIGH COURT - CIVIL CASES

S. Saraladevi Surana Vs. G.S. Sundararaj & Ors. CDJ 2021 MHC
2974
Date of Judgment: 01-07-2021

Suit for Specific Performance — Barred by Limitation — Article 54, Limitation

Act, 1963 — Willingness to Perform

In an Appeal Suit concerning the specific performance of an agreement to

sell, the Hon’ble High Court relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court,
observed that, “the suit was barred by limitation as per Article 54, Limitation
Act, … Admittedly, the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract on
or before 18.06.1992 (the date subsequently fixed for the performance of
the contract). Further, the subsequent payment has no effect while
computing the period of limitation.” Relying on the decisions in Johnson v.
E. Pushpavalli (2016) 4 CTC 152 & V. Suresh Kumar v. A. Ramasamy (2020)
4 CTC 798, the Court found that, “the Plaintiff/Respondent had failed to
prove willingness to perform, as it is proved that the plaintiff failed to pay
the balance sale consideration within the time fixed as per the agreement
for sale, the plaintiff did not take any step to perform his part of the contract
and the delay in proceeding against the defendants clearly establishes that
the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at
any point of time”. The Court held that, “the Plaintiff is entitled to repayment
of the advance amount” and thus set aside the judgment of the Trial Court
and partly allowed the Appeal Suit.

******

12
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Manidurai Vs. Vijaya Rengan & Anr. [CDJ 2021 MHC 2789]
Date of Judgment: 24-06-2021

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Determination of Disability — Calculation

of Compensation — Proof of Income of Claimant

The Hon’ble High Court partly allowed the appeal seeking enhancement of
the compensation fixed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, and found
that, as there was no proof of income of the Appellant/Claimant, the monthly
income as fixed by the Tribunal was reasonable. The Court observed that,
“the disability as fixed by the doctor is permanent partial disability.” Based
on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Rajkumar v. Ajaykumar, 2011
ACJ 1, the disability was determined as 56% and the compensation at
Rs.3,000/- for each percentage of disability. The compensation fixed by the
Tribunal under all other heads was held as reasonable.

*****

Scan QR Code to view Judgment

13
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

D. Sivakumar Vs. Parimala [CDJ 2021 MHC 2683]

Date of Judgment: 11-06-2021

Divorce — Cruelty — Lack of Evidence — Permanent Alimony/Maintenance

The Hon’ble High Court found that, “no case has been made out to invoke
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve the marriage, as no
oral or documentary evidence has been produced by the Appellant/wife to
show that the Respondent/husband has caused any cruelty to her, and
neither parent of the Appellant/wife came to the witness box to give evidence
in support her allegations, despite living in the same house. The Court,
relying on a plethora of decisions* of various High Courts and the Supreme
Court held that, “It is well settled legal position that permanent alimony or
maintenance to wife under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be
granted if the petition for divorce between the parties is dismissed”, and set
aside the order granting maintenance and confirmed the order refusing the
grant of divorce.

*
See Also
• Badri Prasad v. Smt. Urmila Mahobiya [AIR 2001 Madhya Pradesh 106]
• Ranganatham v. Shyamala [AIR 1990 Madras 1]
• Smt. Sushma v. Satish Chandra [AIR 1984 Delhi 1]
• Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan [(1993) 3 SCC 406]

*****

14
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Abdul Sathar Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home

Department, Chennai & Ors. [CDJ 2021 MHC 1193]
Date of Judgment: 05-02-2021

Section 18, Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 — Enforceability of

Adjudicatory Order
The Hon’ble High Court held that, “The recommendation of State Human
Rights Commission under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993 is binding on the Government or Authority, and that an Adjudicatory
Order is legally and immediately enforceable”. The Court observed that on
failure to implement the Commission’s Recommendations within the time
stipulated under Section 18(e) of the Act, the Commission can seek
enforcement by issuance of appropriate Writ/Order/Direction under Section
18(b) of the Act, and that the concerned Government or Authority shall not
oppose such Petition, unless it has sought judicial review of the Commission's
Recommendation. The Court added that the Commission can order recovery
of compensation from the State and payable to the victims of human rights
violation under Section 18(a)(i) of the Act, and the State in turn could recover
the compensation paid, from the Officers of the State who have been found
to be responsible for causing the human rights violations, provided the
Officer concerned is issued a show cause notice seeking his explanation only
on the aspect of quantum of compensation recoverable from him and not on
whether he was responsible for causing the human rights violations. It is
open to the aggrieved Officers/employees to approach the competent Court
to challenge the findings and Recommendations of the Commission.

*****

15
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Johrilal Chowdhary (Died) & Ors. Vs. D. Shankar Chettiar [CDJ

2021 MHC 2682]
Date of Judgment: 11-06-2021

Suit for Mortgage Decree — Admission of Borrowal — Registration of Deposit

of Title Deeds — Section 59, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

The Hon’ble High Court observed that, “In the light of the admission made
by the Defendant (of the borrowal and the deposit of his title deeds as
security to the loan, as a simple mortgage), by virtue of Section 58 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 read with Order XII, Rule 6 and Order XV, Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit
filed by the Plaintiffs herein. As it did not do so, the impugned judgment and
decree are liable to be interfered with.”. The Court further relying on several
decisions of the Apex Court*, found that “deposit of title deeds, being an
equitable mortgage, need not be registered”. The Court thus held that, “the
Plaintiffs are entitled to a mortgage decree as prayed for, as the trial Court
has committed serious errors in not following the well settled legal position.”

*
See Also
• Rachpal Mahraj v. Bhagwandas Daruka & Ors. [AIR 1950 SC 272]
• United Bank of India Limited v. Lekharam Sonaram and Company & Ors. [AIR 1965
SC 1591]
• Canara Bank thru' its Kovilpatti Branch Manager etc., v. R.Rengasami & Ors. [(1994)
2 LW 305]
• State of Haryana & Ors. v. Narvir Singh & Anr. [(2014) 1 SCC 105]

*****

16
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

T.K. Kulandaivelu Vs. K.P. Nallusamy [(2021) 4 MLJ 583]

Date of Judgment: 30-04-2021

Section 118, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Promissory Note —

Rebuttal of Presumption

The Hon’ble High Court, relying on the decision in N.S. Arumugam v. Trishul
Traders (2006) 2 MLJ 42, the found that, “The trial Court was justified in
drawing presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 in favour of the plaintiff/appellant herein”. The Court observed that,
the Defendant had not successfully rebutted the presumption, as no
documentary evidence has been adduced, or witness examined to support
the contention of the Defendant. The Court held that, “the First Appellate
Court has unnecessarily given importance to minor contradictions, and thus
answered the substantial question of law in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff.”
The Court thus set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and
restored the judgment of the Trial Court.

*****

Scan QR Code to view Judgment

17
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

N. Govindarajan & Anr. Vs. S. Logeswari, Rep. by Power of

Attorney, S.L. Arokiyasamy [(2021) 5 MLJ 48]
Date of Judgment: 04-03-2021

Eviction Petition — Vexatious Suits — Forum Shopping — Abuse of Process

In this case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that, “the Respondent
repeatedly filed vexatious suits and petitions against the Petitioners. Relying
on the decisions in Tamil Nadu Handloom Weaver's Co-operative Society v.
S. R. Ejaz 2009 (5) CTC 710 and K. Chandran & Ors. v. V. Geethalakshmi,
2012 (3) MWN (Civil) 832, the Court held that, “the eviction petition filed by
the Respondent is nothing but clear abuse of process of law and also
amounts to forum shopping. Having been failed before the civil courts the
Respondent filed eviction petition before the Rent Controller”. The Court thus
allowed the Civil Revision Petition and dismissed the RCOP as abuse of
process of law.

*****

18
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

V. Ramasamy Vs. L. Priya @ Priya Bhuvaneswari [2021 (4) MLJ

29]
Date of Judgment: 26-04-2021

Matrimonial Dispute — Divorce — Cruelty and Desertion — Restitution of

Conjugal Rights — Maintenance — Visitation Rights

The Hon’ble High Court, in an appeal against the Trial Court’s judgement
rejecting the Appellant’s petition for divorce, held that, “although the
allegation of cruelty and desertion has been found against the Appellant, the
fact that they are living separately for the past 25 long years, and that
mediation efforts undertaken also proved to be of no avail, would compel
the Court to grant the decree of divorce.” Thus, the Court relying on the
decision in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, 2006 (2) CTC 510, granted decree
of divorce to the parties, and further granted permanent maintenance to be
paid by the Appellant to the Respondent, as per the decision in Chandrika v.
M. Vijayakumar, 1996-1 117 Mad. L. W. 695, and rejected the Respondent’s
prayer for restitution of conjugal rights. The Court further, for the reason
that the son was with the Respondent for long time till he was taken care of
by the Appellant, granted visitation rights to the Respondent mother to visit
her son.

*****

19
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Saroja & Anr. Vs. Parvathy & Ors. [2021 (4) MLJ 597]
Date of Judgment: 01-06-2021

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Bar of Jurisdiction — Section 175, The

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Legal Representative — Rule 2(c), Tamil Nadu
Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 — Dependency of legal
representatives

The Hon’ble High Court cited the decisions in Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman
Paswan & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 340 and Balvant N. Viswamitra & Ors. v. Yadav
Sadhashiv Mule, 2004 (8) SCC 706, and held that, “in the light of the bar
contained under Section 175 of The Motor Vehicles Act, the finding rendered
by the Tribunal with regard to the entitlement of compensation to the
Respondents 1 and 2, has no significance. The learned District Munsiff had
travelled beyond jurisdiction and rendered such finding”.

The Court further, relying on the decision in Gujarat State Transport

Corporation vs. Raman Bhat, AIR 1987 SC 1690, found that “according to
Rule 2(c) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules,
1989, which has been framed by virtue of the powers conferred under
Section 176 of The Motor Vehicles Act, ‘Legal Representatives’ shall have the
meaning assigned to it under clause (11) of Section 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908)”.

The Court further, relying on a plethora of decisions* reaffirmed the position

of law that “mere status of legal representative alone is not sufficient to
make a claim. Thus, the basis for entitlement for compensation is
dependency. … Therefore, considering the evidence, prima-facie, the

20
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

respondents 1 and 2 proved their dependency. Therefore, we do not find

any infirmity in awarding compensation to the claimants/respondents 1 and
2.” Thus, the Court sustained the award of compensation passed by the
Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.

*See Also
• Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 ACJ 1298]
• Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [2007 (1) TN MAC 385]
• Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Ramanbhai [AIR 1987 SC 1690]
• National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender & Ors. [2020 (1) TN MAC 182]

*****

21
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Subbaiya Gounder Vs. Velathal & Ors. [CDJ 2021 MHC 118]
Date of Judgment: 19-01-2021

Suit for Partition — Character of Suit Properties — Authenticity of Will

The Hon’ble High Court, reiterating the position of law as held in Narasamma
& Ors. v. A. Krishnappa, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 672, held that, “the plea of
title raised by the first defendant and the plea of adverse possession put
forth by him cannot be validly upheld in the eyes of law.” The Court, rejected
the claim of the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff “not evincing any interest to claim
share in the suit properties after the demise of her father and chosen to lay
the present suit only in the year 2001”. The Court, further held that “the first
appellate Court has failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
adduced in the matter in the proper perspective and without any discussion
on the evidence tendered in the matter, both oral and documentary,
erroneously proceeded to hold that the suit properties are the self-acquired
properties of the deceased Ramasamy Gounder and that the Will projected
by the first defendant Ex. B36 executed by the deceased Ramasamy Gounder
is not a true document.” The Court thus answered the substantial questions
of law in favour of the first Defendant and set aside the judgment of the First
Appellate Court and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

*****

22
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

HIGH COURT – CRIMINAL CASES

Vidya Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Madhavaram,

Chennai & Another CDJ 2021 MHC 3021
Date of Judgment: 06-07-2021

Petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C — Discharge

The Hon’ble High Court observed that, “It is settled proposition of law that,
at the time of deciding a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, seeking
discharge, the Court has to see whether there exist any prima facie materials
to proceed with the case and the defence taken by the accused need not be
looked into at the time of framing of charges. It is settled proposition of law
that while considering petition for discharge of the accused, allegations and
materials in the documents filed by the prosecution in the report under
Section 173, Cr.P.C must be considered and not the defence taken by the
accused.” The Court held that probative value of the evidence need not be
gone into at the stage of framing of charges. The Court further held that a
prima facie case was made out, based on the final report and the documents
annexed thereto. The Court also added that it did not find any reason to
interfere with the Order of the Trial Court.

******

23
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Senthil Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of House Officer, Kodumodi
Police Station, Erode & Anr. [CDJ 2021 MHC 2981]
Date of Judgment: 06-07-2021

Satisfaction of sufficient ground before taking cognizance

In deciding a Criminal Original Petition, the Hon’ble High Court relying upon
various decisions of the Supreme Court which deprecated the practice of
taking cognizance through “Rubber Stamp” orders, reiterated the dictum of
the Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
(2015) 4 SCC 609, that, “taking cognizance is a judicial act which requires
application of mind”. In this case the Hon’ble High Court held that, “the
Learned Magistrate while entertaining the complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C., and taking cognizance, must record his satisfaction for issuance of
process and further the Learned Magistrate has to satisfy sufficient ground
for proceeding further in respect of the complaint.” The Hon’ble High Court
allowed Criminal Original Petition and closed all miscellaneous petitions.

*****

24
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Kanagaraj Vs. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Kottur Police

Station, Coimbatore [CDJ 2021 MHC 2980]
Date of Judgment: 06-07-2021

Delay in sending Statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. to Judicial Magistrate

by Investigating officer — Not fatal to prosecution

The Hon’ble High Court while deciding whether the act of the Investigating
Officer not forwarding the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C.
to the Judicial Magistrate immediately, is fatal to the prosecution, held that,
“In this aspect, it is necessary for the Accused/Appellant to show in what
way due to the said lapse he got prejudiced. But herein, to substantiate his
contention, none of the circumstances were indicated on the side of the
Accused. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, not sending the records
immediately to the Court is only a defect committed by the I.O.” Relying on
the Supreme Court’s decision in 2010 (3) SCC (Cri.) 1402, the Hon’ble High
Court held that, “the defect committed by the investigation officer is not at
all sufficient to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution”. Thus, the
Criminal Appeal was dismissed and the impugned order of conviction and
sentence was confirmed.

*****

25
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Irfan Vs. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,

Krishnagiri [CDJ 2021 MHC 3027]
Date of Judgment: 05-07-2021

Contradiction in evidence of victim — Section 164(5), Cr.P.C. — Section 6,

POCSO Act, 2012

The Hon’ble High Court observed that, the statement of the victim recorded
under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be
used for corroboration or contradiction. The Court added that, if the evidence
of sole witness is cogent, credible and trust worthy, conviction is permissible.

The Court found that, “the victim girl was subjected to penetrative sexual
intercourse by A1. Hence, A1 has committed the offence under Section 366
IPC and Section 5(a)(i) which is punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act,
for which A2 abetted and also aided A1 to commit the said offence.
Therefore, A2 committed the offence under Section 366A IPC. Under these
circumstances, this Court can safely come to the conclusion that the
Appellant/A2 has committed the said offence and the prosecution has
established its case beyond all reasonable doubt.” Appeal was dismissed.

*****

26
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Sadam Hussain Vs. State by The Inspector of Police, Chennai [CDJ

2021 MHC 1634]
Date of Judgment: 05-03-2021

Appreciation of evidence ⎯ Failure of prosecution to prove case beyond

reasonable doubt

The Hon’ble High Court in deciding an Appeal against conviction, found that,
[1] not all names of the Accused persons were disclosed in the FIR [2] No
explanation had been offered by the prosecution for the delay in the FIR
reaching the Court [3] The respondent had not taken steps to enquire the
doctor who treated P.W.1, with regard to the injuries sustained by P.W.1.
[4] Though, failure to hold the Test Identification Parade is not a fatal to the
prosecution, it is necessary that the Trial Court, need to be circumspect in
identification of an Accused by a witness for the first time in Court, if the
Accused is a stranger to the witness. The Court held that the prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and that the Trial
Court without proper appreciation of evidence of the witnesses and materials
on record had erred in convicting the Appellant/Accused on the basis of
uncorroborated and doubtful evidence of P.W.1, which is in conflict with the
other evidence and thereby the Appellant/Accused is entitled to the benefit
of doubt. Thus, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the judgment of
the Trial Court.

*****

27
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

State by the Inspector of Police, Shankar Nagar Police Station,

Chennai & Anr. Vs. M. Dhamodaran @ Prakash & Anr. [CDJ 2021
MHC 2826]
Date of Judgment: 28-06-2021

Sections 302 and 309 IPC — Parricide — Attempt to Commit Suicide —

Modification of Sentence — No Statutory Remission or Commutation

The Hon’ble High Court in a case of parricide found that, “though the
evidence on record leads us to the inference that the Appellant attempted
to commit suicide after doing away with his near and dear ones and
therefore, he would be punishable under Section 309 IPC., we lay this matter
to rest as the State has not preferred any appeal assailing the Appellant’s
acquittal of this charge.”

The Court upheld the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302, IPC,
and relying on the decision in Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan and
others, (2016) 7 SCC 1, further held that, “we are convinced that this case
does not come within the category of “rarest of rare cases” for awarding
capital punishment, by applying the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684. … we modify
the sentence of death penalty into one of life imprisonment with a rider that
the appellant will not be entitled to any statutory remission or commutation
until he completes 25 years of actual imprisonment. This rider is added
because he has to suffer this long at least for the mindless violence he had
let loose on the hapless victims, all because, he being a coward, lacked the
courage to face the financial crunch he was into.”

*****

28
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Union of India Rep. by the Inspector of Police, National

Investigation Agency, Chennai Vs. Vivekanandan @ Vivek @ Raja
@ Balan & Anr. [CDJ 2021 MHC 2825]
Date of Judgment: 28-06-2021

Section 21, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 — Unlawful Activities

Prevention Act, 1967 — Grant of Bail — Section 167(2), Cr.P.C

In a Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation

Agency Act, to cancel the bail granted to the Respondent before the Hon’ble
High Court. The Hon’ble High Court deciding upon the issue whether the
grant of bail was right in law answered on the affirmative by holding that,
“the State had acted in a cavalier manner for extinguishing the statutory
right of a prisoner to be released on default bail under Section 167(2)
Cr.P.C.” As a sequel, Crl.A.No.275 of 2021 was dismissed.

See Also
• Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umarji v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [(2004) 6 SCC 672]
• C.B.I., Special Investigation Cell-I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni [(1992) 3 SCC
141]
• Rambeer Shokeen v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2018) 4 SCC 405]
• Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab [(2020) 10 SCC 616]
• Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [(1994) 4 SCC 602]

*****

29
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

S. Padma Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to

Government [2021-2-L.W.(Crl) 59]
Date of Judgment: 17-06-2021

Right of convicts to contact family members through video call — Articles 14,
19 and 21, Constitution of India, 1950

In deciding a Habeas Corpus Petition to permit the convicts to talk to their

family members residing outside India, over video call, the Hon’ble High
Court found that, “A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.524, Home (Prl.III) Department,
dated 16.09.2011 would disclose that the authorities could allow the
prisoners to use the telephone facility and there is no prohibition under the
said Government Order prohibiting the prisoners from having telephonic
conversation with the relatives in foreign countries. If the relatives are
unable to come over to India to meet the prisoner due to lack of funds or
circumstances, it cannot be put against the prisoners.” The Court made a
reference to the Supreme Court’s decisions in suo motu WP(C).No.1/2020,
by an order dated 23.03.2020, Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, (1980)
3 SCC 488 and Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory
of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 746 and observed that, “If the convicts are not
permitted to have conversation with their grieving family members, it would
amount to violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court further directed the authorities to videograph the conversation,
and if any conversation apart from family matters are discussed, the
authorities are at liberty to disconnect the call.

*****

30
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

Ramesh Vs. State Rep. by its All Women Police Station, Cuddalore
[CDJ 2021 MHC 2636]
Date of Judgment: 14-06-2021

Consensual Sexual Act — Misconception/False Promise — Section 374(2),

Cr.P.C — Sections 376 and 417, IPC

In a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to set aside the
Judgment of conviction and sentence under Secs. 376 & 417 of IPC, the
Hon’ble High Court held that, “Taking into consideration the overall
circumstances in this case, … false promise itself has no immediate relevance
and also does not bear direct nexus to the decision of the prosecutrix to
engage in the sexual act.” Further, it was held that, “…prosecutrix agrees to
have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused
and not solely on account of the misconception created by the accused. If
the Appellant had any malafide intention and if he had clandestine motives,
it could be brought into the ingredient of rape. The acknowledged
consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute
the offence under Sec. 376 IPC. Further as stated above no evidence has
been made out for the offence u/s. 417 I.P.C.” Thus, the Hon’ble High Court,
allowed the Criminal Appeal and set aside the Judgment of conviction made
by the Sessions Judge i/c Mahila Court, Cuddalore District.

*****

31
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY COMPENDIUM OF CASE LAWS

State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Chennai Vs. Dr. M.

Manikandan [CDJ 2021 MHC 2969]
Date of Judgment: 02-07-2021

Collection of evidence — Obscene photos of victim sent to victim — Section

482, Cr.P.C – Sections 417, 376, 313, 323 and 506(i), IPC r/w 67A,
Information Technology Act, 2000.

In a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for
offence under Sections 417, 376, 313, 323 and 506(i) IPC r/w 67A of
Information Technology Act. During investigation, the police were unable to
find out where the mobile phone was available, the mobile phone was
switched off, and not active, hence could not be traced. The Respondent is
having exclusive knowledge about the concealed mobile phone and the said
mobile phone is very much necessary and a vital material for the
investigation of the above case. In the light of the circumstances, the Hon’ble
High Court held that, “…investigation is nothing but evidence collection. …
The seizure and verification are imminent to complete the chain of events
with conclusive evidence.” Thus, the Hon’ble High Court directed for the
police custody of the Respondent for a period of two days and the order of
the Lower Court to be set aside.

*****

32