Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.48 seconds)
Sri Rithesh Pais vs State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2022 cites

Swaran Singh vs Swaran Kaur And Ors. on 12 January, 2004

14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) [Ed.: This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:"Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."] . The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been 11 a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - V Mittal - Full Document

Swaran Singh & Ors vs State Tr.Standing Council & Anr on 18 August, 2008

15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435:
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 91 - M Katju - Full Document

Ashabai Machindra Adhagale vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 February, 2009

The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale [Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 20] as it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 81 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of U.P vs Naresh And Ors on 8 March, 2011

Insofar as the judgment relied on by the State in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and others reported in (2011)4 SCC 324 to contend merely because the witnesses are the friends of the complainant, it would not vitiate the proceedings. The said judgment is distinguishable on the facts of the case at hand in juxtaposition to the facts obtaining in the said case, without much ado, as the case was concerning examination of witnesses in a trial for murder under Section 302 of the IPC and all the witnesses though were friends, had corroboration with other material. In the case at hand, neither the complaint nor the statements nor the finding in the charge sheet would be enough to drive home the offence so alleged under the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 797 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1