MEHBOOB ALI …PETITIONER(S) Vs.
NISAR FATIMA ….RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE CRM(M) No.265/2022👨‍⚖️ 

Slapping a wife in a public setting does not constitute the offence of violating a woman’s modesty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code./J&K High Court 

The petitioner, husband of the respondent, claims to have filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent/wife and the respondent/wife too has filed a suit for cancellation of the marriage
agreement executed between the parties. It is stated that while the above-mentioned litigations were pending between the parties, the respondent, at the behest of her family members, filed a false and
flimsy complaint before the learned trial court which referred the same to the concerned police for investigation under Section 202 of Cr. P. C.
CRM(M) No.265/2022 Page 2 of 4 After the report in terms of Section 202 of Cr. P. C was submitted by
the police, the learned trial court vide order dated 30.03.2022, issued process against the petitioner for commission of offences under Section 323 and 354 IPC.

7) The perusal of the complaint reveals that the respondent moved an application for initiation of criminal proceedings/lodging of FIR against the petitioner alleging therein that when she had come to the Court on 19.03.2022, the petitioner thrashed her, as a result of which she got injured and he also slapped the respondent in public gaze. The learned trial court recorded the statement of the respondent who was identified by her counsel and the trial court thereafter in its wisdom deem it proper to refer the complaint to SHO, P/S Pulwama for investigation under Section 202 of Cr. P. C. The SHO, P/S Pulwama, submitted a report before the trial court and by placing reliance upon the said report, the trial court issued the process against the petitioner
for commission of offences under Section 323 and 354 IPC. As rightly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, from the averments made in the complaint, no offence under Section 354 IPC is made out but offence under Section 323 IPC is made out as the respondent has categorically stated that she was thrashed and slapped in public gaze by the petitioner when she had come to attend the
proceedings.

8) The trial court record reveals that before the matter was referred for investigation under Section 202 of Cr. P. C, the statement of the CRM(M) No.265/2022 Page 4 of 4 complainant was recorded by the learned Magistrate, as such, there is no force in the contention raised by the petitioner.
9) For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that order dated 30.03.2022, so far as issuance of process for commission of offence under Section 354 IPC is concerned, the same
is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, accordingly, the same is quashed whereas the order impugned to the extent of issuance of process under Section 323 IPC is upheld. The petition is, accordingly,
disposed of. The interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. The trial court shall proceed ahead with the proceedings in accordance with law.

To read the judgment kindly click here 

MEHBOOB ALI Vs. NISAR FATIMA JUDGMENT THE LAW LITERATES J &k HIGH COURT

All rights reserved (Vaibhav Tomar 𝔸𝕕𝕧)

SUNIL GULATI VERSUS NASEEM AHMED & ANR. 

CORAM: (Delhi High Court)
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR

Delhi Rent Control Act Section 14(1)(e) Eviction petition The petitioner challenges the order of the Rent Controller that dismissed his application to be impleaded as a party in an eviction petition filed by the respondent no.1, against the respondent no.2, who is the petitioner’s brother and one of the legal heirs of their deceased father – The petitioner claims to be the owner and exclusive possessor of the suit property, which is a shop and a workshop, by way of adverse possession of the evacuee property and relinquishment deeds executed by the other legal heirs of his father – He alleges that the respondent no.1 and 2 have colluded to create a false landlord-tenant relationship and seeks to join the eviction petition to protect his rights – The respondent no.1 contends that he is the landlord of the suit property and that ‘father of Petitioner’ was his tenant till his death, after which the tenancy devolved upon the respondent no.21. – He argues that the petitioner is not a necessary party in the eviction petition and that his claim of ownership is irrelevant and impermissible in the proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – The court dismisses the petition and upholds the order of the Rent Controller, holding that the petitioner cannot intervene in the eviction petition as a third person claiming ownership of the suit property and that his remedy lies elsewhere – The court relies on the settled law that one of the coowners or joint tenants can file or contest an eviction petition on behalf of the others and that the decision will be binding on all of them.

Relevant Paras:

16. The petitioner is yet to establish his status in the suit property as an owner, however, the petitioner is seeking impleadment into the eviction petition on the ground of being an LR of Sh. Madan Lal Gulati. The learned Trial Court has correctly considered that the petitioner is a joint tenant in the suit property. Therefore, it is not necessary for him to be impleaded as a defendant in an eviction petition as it is not necessary for all the tenants who are joint tenants to be arrayed as defendants in the eviction petition. The
petition filed by respondent no. 1 against respondent no. 2 is on the averments that they are in landlord-tenant relationship, therefore, the claim of the petitioner is impermissible in these circumstances as same cannot be adjudicated upon the present eviction petition.
17. Similar issue arose before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Anr. Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla. (Dead) by LRs Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 178 it has been held as under :-
“6……. It is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a
suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners…”

18. The above mentioned principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in FGP Ltd. vs. Saleh Hooseini Doctor and Anr. 2009(10) SCC 223.
19. In due consideration of the above laid principle of law, the petitioner cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party in the present eviction petition as he is trying to set up a case adverse to that of respondent no. 1 which will render his eviction petition infructuous. It is needless to say that remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere and the petitioner can bring his own suit seeking declaration of his ownership title.
20. Thus, this Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by learned ARC, consequently, the petition along with pending applications is dismissed leaving open the remedies of the petitioner against his brother.

To read the judgment click here 

SUNIL GULATI VERSUS NASEEM AHMAD THE LAW LITERATES JUDGMENT

All rights Reserved (Adv Vaibhav Tomar)

Parambir Singh vs State of Punjab CRMM 45865/23 19/09/23 [ RAJBIR SEHRAWAT JUSTICE ] [ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ]

Section 439 CRPC Arms Act, Section 25 Indian Penal Code, Sections 379B and 34 Regular Bail Snatching of car with others Petitioner contends that the recovery of illegal arms and ammunition from their house is a planted evidence due to police animosity Held,

except for the recovery of the car outside the petitioner’s house and the presence of the person who snatched it along with some arms and ammunition recovered from the petitioner’s house, there is no direct allegation against the petitioner in the incident of snatching Petitioner has been in custody since July 17, 2023 – Bail granted.

To read the judgment click here 

CRM-M_45865_2023_19_09_2023_FINAL_ORDER Parambir Singh vs State

All rights Reserved (Vaibhav Tomar Adv)