Amendment of complaint under sec.200 of Cr.P.C.- Allowed - Evidence recorded - took cognizance and issued summons to the Accused

  Amendment of complaint under sec.200 of Cr.P.C.- Allowed - Evidence recorded - took cognizance and issued summons to the Accused - Challenged - High court declined - Apex court held that In the instant case, the  amendment  application  was  filed  on
24.05.2007 to carry out the amendment by adding  paras  11(a)  and  11  (b).
Though,  the  proposed  amendment  was  not  a  formal  amendment,   but   a
substantial one, the Magistrate allowed the amendment application mainly  on
the ground that  no  cognizance  was  taken  of  the  complaint  before  the
disposal of amendment application.
Firstly, Magistrate  was  yet  to  apply
the judicial mind to the  contents  of  the  complaint  and  had  not  taken
cognizance of the matter.
Secondly, since summons was yet to be ordered  to
be issued to the accused, no prejudice  would  be  caused  to  the  accused.
Thirdly, the amendment did not change the original nature of  the  complaint
being one for defamation.
Fourthly, the publication of  poem  ‘Khalnayakaru’
being in the nature of subsequent event created a new  cause  of  action  in
favour of the respondent which could have been prosecuted by the  respondent
by filing a separate  complaint  and  therefore  to  avoid  multiplicity  of
proceedings, the trial court allowed the amendment application.
Considering
these factors which weighed  in the mind of the courts below, in  our  view,
the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the order  passed  by  the
Magistrate allowing the amendment application and the  impugned  order  does
not suffer from any serious infirmity warranting  interference  in  exercise
of jurisdiction under Article  136 of the Constitution of India. -2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more