Posts

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, = whether fresh investigation should be directed to be caused, it is necessary to understand the distinction between further investigation and fresh investigation. = While Section 173(8) CrPC permits the former, it does not provide for the latter. Investigation can be ordered by the Court in varied forms, and at different stages. Right at the initial stage of receiving the FIR or a complaint, the Court can direct investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 156(1), in the exercise of its powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation can be of the following kinds (i) Initial Investigation; (ii) Further Investigation; (iii) Fresh or de novo or re-investigation. (Vinay Tyagi1). There is no provision in the CrPC which, expressly or by necessary implication, bars the right of the police to further investigate, after cognizance of the case has been taken by the Magistrate. Practice, convenience and preponderance of authority, permits repeated investigation on discovery of fresh facts. (State v. Mehar Singh ). Notwithstanding that a Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C, the right of the police to further investigate is not exhausted. The police can exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information comes to light. Where they desire to make further investigation, the police can seek the formal permission of the Court to make further investigation.

HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND  HONBLE MS. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI                     

W.P.(PIL) No.186 of 2017 and batch

19-01-2018

Prof. Rama Shankarnarayan Melkote and three others..Petitioner 

State of A.P. rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntu

Counsel for Petitioners:  Ms. Vasudha Nagaraj

Counsel for respondents: Government Pleader for Home 

<GIST: 

>HEAD NOTE:   

?Citations:

1)      (2014) 5 SCC 108
2)      2013 (1) ALD (Crl.) 519 (SC)
3)      ILR (1973) 2 P&H 561 = 1974 Crl.L.J 970
4)      (2008) 2 SCC 383 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 427
5)      (1979) 2 SCC 322
6)      1974 Crl.L.J. 970 = ILR (1973) 2 P&H 561
7)      (1998) 5 SCC 223
8)      (1992) 1 SCC 397
9)      (2004) 4 SCC 158
10)     (2016) 3 SCC 135 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 743
11)     (2010) 6 SCC 1
12)     (2014) 5 SCC 154
13)     (2003) 11 SCC 271
14)     (2014) 2 SCC 532
15)     (2011) 12 SCC 302 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 55…

Hindu marriage Act - Divorce by husband - restitution of conjugal rights by wife - divorce refused - restitution 0f conjugal rights allowed - schizophrenia = mere allegation is not enough until and unless petitioning spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with her = it was proved that Matrimonial law is concerned with human conduct or human situation, only if, and insofar as, it affects matrimonial happiness. In assessing the effect on matrimonial happiness the legislature has adopted the test of reasonableness. This keeps the statute free from rigid, mechanical tests. It also leaves the judiciary an element of elasticity which, inter alia, enables the court to adjust the relief according to (i) developments in medical science; (ii) appearance of new or aggravated disease; and unexpected or unusual mental symptoms. The context in which the idea of unsoundness of mind as " mental disorder " occur in matrimonial law as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, requires the assessment of the degree of the " mental disorder". Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities are not recognised as grounds for the grant of divorce.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HONBLE SRI JUSTICE N.BALAYOGI                 

Family Court Appeal Nos.105 of 2014 and BATCH 

24-01-2018

Tallam Suresh Babu, S/o Late Satyanarayana,  Aged about 32 years, Software Engineer, R/o. D.No.15/77, P.B. Street, Kadapa Ci

T.Swetha Rani, D/o S.Chandrasekhar,  Aged 26 years, Occ: House Wife,  R/o. Habeebullah Street, Opp. Balaji Temple, Kadapa Ci 

Counsel for Appellant:  Mr. Y.V.N. Narayana Rao 

Counsel for Respondent:Mr. P.Veera Reddy, 
                        Senior Counsel, representing
                        Mr. Karri Murali Krishna
<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:
   1. 2007 (1) ALT 177
   2. AIR 2016 Kant 169
   3. (1970) 2 MLJ 429
   4. (1938) 3 A.E.R.185
   5. (1938) 4 A.E.R 696
   6. (1954) 3 A.E.R 502
   7. 1959) 3 A.E.R 389
   8. (1961) 1 W.L.R 1481
   9. AIR 1981 Del. 253
 10. (1988) 4 SCC 247
 11. 2005 (43) Civil CC (S.C.)
 12. (2006) 3 SCC 778
 13. (2011) 12 SCC 1
 14. (2014) 1 SCC 225
15. 2017 (1) ALD 134


HONBL…