Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 1551

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Champa Devi – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia, Aftab Ali Khan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Anil Nag, Arun Singh, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court dismissed the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution (!) . - The impugned order is based on consistent interpretations of Section 125 CrPC as established by prior decisions over the last two decades (!) (!) . - The decision references Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta (1995) 5 SCC 299 as part of the basis for not interfering (!) . - The judgment notes no justification to interfere with the impugned order, leading to dismissal of the petition (!) . - Advocates for the petitioner and respondent are listed, indicating representation in the proceedings (!) . - The order being reviewed is Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi, Cr. MMO No. 230 of 2014, dated 9.4.2015 (H.P.) (!) . - The final decision states: "The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed" (!) .

What is the basis for the court’s decision to dismiss the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution?

What is the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC as applied by this Court over the last two decades in relation to this case?

What are the facts and reasoning the Court relies on from Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta and how do they influence the outcome?

ORDER :

1. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at some length.

2. Having perused the impugned order [Manoj Kumar v. Champa Devi, Cr. MMO No. 230 of 2014. D/d. 9.4.2015 (H.P.)], we are satisfied, that the same is based on the two decisions rendered by this Court, firstly, Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299, and secondly, Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.) and others, 2000(3) SCC 180. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including the explanation under sub-section (1) thereof, has been consistently interpreted by this Court, for the last two decades. The aforesaid consistent view has been followed by the High Court while passing the impugned order.

3. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no justification whatsoever, to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

4. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 1551

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJAY KISHAN KAULManoj Kumar – AppellantVersusChampa Devi – Respondent

What is the basis for the court’s decision to dismiss the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution?

What is the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC as applied by this Court over the last two decades in relation to this case?

What are the facts and reasoning the Court relies on from Vanamala (Smt) v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta and how do they influence the outcome?

Cases Referred (2)

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Champa Devi – Respondent