Coronavirus crisis: Govt brings in ordinance; up to 7-year jail for attacking health workers, fine upto Rs 5 Lakhs. (DOWNLOAD HERE)

Ordinance to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 in the light of the pandemic situation of COVID-19 (DOWNLOAD BELOW)

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, there have been instances of the most critical service providers i.e. members of healthcare services being targeted and attacked by miscreants, thereby obstructing them from doing their duties. Members of the Medical community, even as they continue to perform relentlessly round the clock and save human lives, have unfortunately become the most vulnerable victims as they have been perceived by some as carriers of the virus.This has led to cases of their stigmatization and ostracization and sometimes worse, acts of unwarranted violence and harassment.  Such a situation tends to hamper the medical community from performing their duties to their optimum best and maintaining their morale, which is a critical need in this hour of national health crisis. While healthcare service personnel are duty bound to serve without discrimination, the cooperation and support from society is a fundamental need for them to perform their duties with confidence. 

Several States have enacted special laws to offer protection to doctors and other medical personnel in the past. However, Covid-19 outbreak has posed a unique situation where harassment of the healthcare workforce and others working to contain the spread of the disease has been taking place at all fronts, in various places including even cremation grounds. The existing state laws do not have such a wide sweep and ambit. They generally do not cover harassment at home and workplace and are focused more on physical violence only. The penal provisions contained in these laws are not stringent enough to deter mischief mongering.

In this context, the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 22nd April 2020 has approved promulgation of an Ordinance to amend the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 to protect healthcare service personnel and property including their living/working premises against violence during epidemics. The President has given his assent for promulgation of the Ordinance. The Ordinance provides for making such acts of violence cognizable and non-bailable offences and for compensation for injury to healthcare service personnel or for causing damage or loss to the property in which healthcare service personnel may have a direct interest in relation to the epidemic.

The current Ordinance is intended to ensure that during any situation akin to the current pandemic, there is zero tolerance to any form of violence against healthcare service personnel and damage to property. The general public fully cooperates with healthcare personnel and have expressed their gratitude in a very organized manner several times during the past month. Nevertheless, some incidents of violence have taken place which has demoralized the medical fraternity. It is felt that separate and most stringent provisions for emergent times are needed toact as effective deterrents to any such incidents of violence.

 

Violence as defined in the Ordinance will include harassment and physical injury and damage to property. Healthcare service personnel include public and clinical healthcare service providers such as doctors, nurses, paramedical workers and community health workers; any other persons empowered under the Act to take measures to prevent the outbreak of the disease or spread thereof; and any persons declared as such by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette. 

The penal provisions can be invoked in instances of damage to property including a clinical establishment, any facility identified for quarantine and isolation of patients, mobile medical units and any other property in which the healthcare service personnel have direct interest in relation to the epidemic.

The amendment makes acts of violence cognizable and non-bailable offences. Commission or abetment of such acts of violence shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of three months to five years, and with fine of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-.  In case of causing grievous hurt, imprisonment shall be for a term six months to seven years and with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-.   In addition, the offender shall also be liable to pay compensation to the victim and twice the fair market value for damage of property.

Offences shall be investigated by an officer of the rank of Inspector within a period of 30 days, and trial has to be completed in one year, unless extended by the court for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Looking at the interventions required during the current Covid-19 outbreak, the Central Government has been given a concurrent role with the State Governments to take any measures that may be needed to prevent the outbreak of an epidemic or the spread thereof. In addition, the scope of inspection of vessels arriving or leaving the country has been enlarged to include road, rail, sea and air vessels.

The health workforce are our frontline soldiers in battling the spread of Covid-19. They put their own lives at risk in order to ensure safety of others. They deserve our highest respect and encouragement at this moment rather than being harassed or being subjected to violence. It is hoped that this Ordinance will have the impact of infusing confidence in the community of healthcare service personnel so that they can continue to contribute to serving mankind through their noble professions in the extremely difficult circumstances being witnessed during the current Covid-19 outbreak.

View complete Ordinance below :-

आप सभी के लिए 125 सीआरपीसी के महत्वपूर्ण आदेशों की सूची Some most important Judgments related to 125 Cr.P.C.

👍आप सभी के लिए 125 सीआरपीसी के महत्वपूर्ण आदेशों की सूची
Some most important Judgments related to 125 Cr.P.C.

1. 125 CrPC cannot be filed twice, only 127 CrPC is allowed. (High Court Gujrat), Bench Hbl J. M. R. Shah, Order on 30-08-2011, Cr RA/69/2011 8/8, Revision Appeal No. 69 of 2011, Chauhan Anjanaben Jayantibhai Vs Chauhan Kanaiyalal Mohanlal.(Chauhan vs Chauhan)

2. No Multiple maintenances are allowed. (High Court Gujrat), Bench Hbl J. Akhil Kureshi, order on 21-10-2010, Special Appeal No. 2080 of 2010, SCR. A/2080/2010, 2/2, Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat.

3. Multiple petitions of maintenance are not allowed. (High Court Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order on 30-08-10, Crl. M. C. No. 130/2010 and Crl. M. A. No. 504/2010, Rachna Kathuria vs Ramesh Kathuria. Citation No. 173 (2010) DLT 289.

4. Double Jeopardy. Same relief of maintenance cannot be asked twice in two different courts. Litigant cannot ride two horses. (High Court Mumbai), Bench Hbl B. Wahane, J. Order on 17-07-1991. Ravindra Haribhau Karmarkar Vs Mrs. Shaila R. Karmarkar. Citation No. 1992 Cri LJ 1845.

5. Separate income of wife can be taken in to account in determining the amount of maintenance payable to her. (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl JJ. Sarkaria R. Singh, Chandrachud Y.V., Gupta A.C., Order on 17-10-1974, Bhagwan Dutt Vs Kamla Devi and Ors. Citation Nos. 1975 AIR 83; 1975 SCR (2) 483; 1975 SCC (2) 386; Citator R 1986 SC 984 (5), R 1987 SC 1100 (5).

6. No parallel 125CrPC and DVA for maintenance. (High Court Delhi), Bench Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order on 22-09-2010, Crl. R. P. No. 633 of 2010, Crl M. A. No. 15451/ 2010, Renu Mittal Vs Anil Mittal & Ors. Citation No. 173 (2010) DLT 269.

7. Interim maintenance increase illegal. (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl JJ. B.N. Agarwal and G. S. Singhvi, Order on 23-02-2009, Civil Appeal No. 1163/2009, SLP (C) No. 16742 of 2006, Sanjeev Gupta Vs Salini Gupta. Citation No. 2009 INSC 390 (23 February 2009); II (2012 DMC 705.

8. Claim of high status of husband is not sufficient for interim maintenance. (High Court Delhi), Bench Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhigra, order on 01-09-2010, Crl M. C. No. 4066 of 2009 and Crl. M. A. No. 13807 of 2009, Amit Khanna Vs Priyanka Khanna.

9. Interim Maintenance cannot be increased based on husband salary hike. (High Court Mumbai), Bench Hbl R. S. Dalvi, J. order 26-02-2010, W. P. No. 6686 of 2009, Ritula Singh Vs Lt. Col. Rajeswar Singh.

10. Children can claim maintenance from mother. Punishment awarded U/s 193 IPC to wife for providing false evidence to the court. (High Court Delhi), Hbl J. Dr.S. Murlidharan, order on 23-03-2009, Crl. M. C. 1130/2008 & Crl. M. A. 4231/ 2008, Jagdish Prasad Vs State of NCT Delhi & Ors.

11. Maintenance arrears of one year only from the date of filing the petition. (High Court AP), Hbl D.J. Raju, J., order on 31 March 1984, Jangam Srinivasa Rao Vs Jangam Rajeswari & ors. Citation No. 1990 Cri LJ 2506.

12. Take EMI into consideration in maintenance and reduced maintenance. (Supreme Court), Hbl A. Kabir and C. Joseph, JJ., order on 28-08-2009, Crl Appeal No. 879 of 2009, Arising on SLP ( Crl.) No. 7503 of 2008, SLP (Crl.) No. 7924 of 2008, Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur. Citation Nos. (2010) 15 SCC 372 A; (2010) 15 SCC 372 B.

13. Wife cannot take advantage of two orders of maintenance passed by civil as well as criminal court. (HC Maharastra), Bench Hbl R. Lodha J., order on 13-09-1995, Gomaji Vs Smt. Yasoda & Ors. Citation No. 1(1996) DMC 487; II (1996) DMC 469.

14. Working wife no maintenance in HMA 24, 125 CrPC only for child. (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl JJ. T. Chatterjee and H. Dattu, order on 23 March 2009, Civil Appeal Nos. 1789-1790 of 2009, SLP (C) Nos. 24589-24590 of 2007, Anu Kaul Vs Rajeev Kaul. Citation Nos. (2009) INSC 582 (23 March 2009); (2009) 13 SCC 209.

15. Meaning of unable to maintain in 125 CrPC and grounds for maintenance. (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl J. Dr. Arijit Pasayat, order on 27-11-2007, Appeal Cr. 1627 of 2007 arising on SLP No. (Crl.) 4379 of 2006, Chaturbhuj Vs Sita bai. Citation Nos. (2008) 2 SCC 316; AIR 2008 SC 530; 2008 (I0 KLT 41 (SC).

16. Maintenance awarded in two sections is offset. (HC Punjab and Haryana), Coram Mr. J. S. D. Anand, order on 23-02-2010, Civil revision No. 2427 of 2009, Gian Chand Vs Dilpreet Kaur.

17. Liability of maintenance of children is co-extensive in 2:1 when both parents are working. (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl J. D. P. Wadhwa, order 28-03-2000, AIR 2000 SC 1398, I (200) DMC 621, 2000 II OLR SC 85, Padmja Sharma Vs Ratan Lal Sharma. Citation No. (2000) 4 SCC 266.

18. Meaning to unable to maintenance. (Supreme Court), Bench, Hbl P. Sathasivam, J, .order 20 July 2011, Civil Appeal Nos. 5831-5833 of 2011, Arising SLP (C) Nos. 20518-20520 of 2009, Vinny Parmar Vs Paramvir. Citation No. AIR 2011 SC 2748; (2011) 7 SCALE 741.

19. No maintenance to earning spouse. (HC Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order on 18-09-2008, CM (M) 949/ 08, Manish Kumar Vs Pratibha.

20. No maintenance if wife lies. (SC), Bench Hbl JJ.. G. S. Singhvi and Ashok Kumar Ganguli, order on 03-12-2009, Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2009, Dalip Singh Vs State of Up and Ors. Citation No. (2010) 2 SCC 114.

21. Reduced interim maintenance. (SC), Hbl J. R. M. Lodha, order on 20-07-2010, Appeal No. 5660 of 2010, Arising SLP (C) No. 6736 of 2007, Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs Rakesh Jeetmal Jain. Citation No. AIR 2010 SC 3540; (2010) 12 SCC 242; 2010 (7) JT I 76 (SC).

22. Wife is not entitled to maintenance who deserted her husband. (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl JJ. S. Ahmed & D. Wadhwa, order on 02-03-200, AIR 2000 SC 952, 2000(2) ALD Cri 15, 2000Cr. LJ 1498, Rohtash Singh Vs Smt. Ramendrei & Ors. Citation No. (2000) 3 SCC 180; JT 2000 (2) SC 553.

23. Maintenance not granted as it is proved that wife wants to reside separately. No maintenance to deserting wife. (HC Chhattisgarh), Hbl J., L. C. Bhadoo, order on 15 -02-2004, Crl. Revision No. 544/2003, Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs Santoshi Yadav.

24. Husband can get PF details of wife. (CIC, Delhi), Decision No. 1816/ IC (A) 2008, F No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583, Prof M.M. Ansari, order on 10 Jan 2008.

25. Wife guilty of contempt of court, maintenance denied with cost. (HC Delhi), Hbl J. S. N. Dhingra, order on 25-01-2010, Cont. Case (C) 482 of 2008, Gurbinder Singh Vs Manjit Kaur.

26. Children have to maintain their parents. (High Court Gujrat), Hbl J. Akhil Kureshi, order on 09-02-2011, CR RA/759 of 2009, 4/4, Hasmukhbhai Narayan Bhai Viramiya Vs State & Ors.

27. Conditions when maintenance to be paid. (High Court Delhi), Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog J., order reserved on 02-04-2007, order on 14-04-2007, CM (M) No. 367 of 2007, Alok Kumar Jain Vs Purnima Jain. Citation No. 2007 (96) DRJ 115.

28. All states amends in Sec 125 CrPC is invalid. (SC), Bench Hbl M. Katju, Gyan Sudha Mishra JJ., order on 11 Jan 2011, Crl Appeal No. 107 of 2011, SLP (Crl) No. 6568 of 2009, Manoj Yadav Vs Pushpa Yadav. Citation No. 2011 : 1 L.W. (Crl.) 520.

29. Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain her. No maintenance to enable wife who deserted her husband. (High Court Karnataka), Bench Hbl J. M. Patil, order on 13-02-1980, Haunsabai Vs Balkrishna Krishna Badigar. Citation Nos. 1981 Cri LJ 110; ILR 1980 KAR 612; 1980 (2) Kar LJ 158.

30. Maintenance on actual earning. (High Court Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order reserved 25-07-2008, order on 18-09-2008, CM (M) No. 1790 of 2006 and CM No. 1435 of 2006, Ritu Raj Kant Vs Anita. Citation No. 154 (2008) DLT 505.

31. Maintenance denied for working wife. (High Court Madras), Hbl A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy J., order on 21-06-2002, Kumaresan Vs Aswathi. Citation No. (2002) 2 MLJ 760.

32. No maintenance for capable and working wife. (High Court Maharastra), Hbl J. C. Chitre J., order on 24-03-2000, Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs Rajesh Jaiswal. Citation No. 2000 (4) MPHT 457; II (2000) DMC 170.

33. No maintenance to earning wife, only to children. (High Court Karnataka), Hbl K. Manjunath J., order on 22-08-2005, AIR 2005 Kant 417, ILR 2005 KAR 4981, Dr. E. Shanthi Vs Dr. H K. Vasudev.

34. No Maintenance to working wife in 125 CrPC. (High Court Madras), Hbl P. Sathasivam J., order on 21-01-2003, Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs M. Devaki. Citation Nos. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad), CMP No. 16264 of 2002.

35. No Maintenance to wife, but only to child. (HC Mumbai), Hbl J. B. L. Marlapalle, order on 18-7-2009, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 and 144 of 2005, Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs Kamal Puskar Mehra. Citation Nos. 2010 AIR (Bom) 34; 2009 (5) AIIMR 798; Legal/ 360.in 114983; LS/Bom/2009/1374.

36. No Maintenance to capable wife. (HC Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order on 10-09-2008, CM (M) No. 539 of 2008, Vijay Kumar Vs Harsh Lata Aggarwal.

37. No maintenance U/s 125 CrPC when wife deserts hubby without cause and also she is earning. No Maintenance to capable wife, but only to child and no maintenance to wife living in adultery. (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Alok Singh, order on 18-11-2009, Crl. Rev. No. 201 of 2006, Smt. Archana Gupta & ors Vs Rajeev Gupta.

38. Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain herself. (HC Allahabad), Hbl J. B. Katju, order on 25-03-1976, Manmohan Singh Vs Smt. Mahindra Kaur. Citation No. 1976 Cri LJ 1664.

39. No Maintenance if wife is working. (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Dharamveer, order on 25-10-2010, Crl Rev. No. 88 of 2002, Vikas Jain Vs Deepali @ Ayushi. Citation No. LAWS (UTN) 2010-1-36.

40. Wife living separate troubled in family no maintenance. (HC Madras), Hbl J. P. R. Shiva Kumar, order on 22-02-2008, Crl. R. C. No. 1491 of 2005, Marimuthu Vs Janaki. Citation No. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752.

41. No maintenance to wife who left her husband. (HC Mumbai), Hbl V. R. Kingaonkar J., order on 08-04-2008, Cri R.A. 226 of 2002, Sanjay Sudhkar Bhosle Vs Khristina. Citation No. 2008 (2) Bom. C.R. (Cri) 467.

42. No maintenance to deserted wife who denied to live with husband. (HC Gujarat), Hbl G. L. Gupta J., order on 22-01-1999, Crl. Rev. No. 179 of 1997, Crl P. C. 2 of 1974 S. 125, Bheeka Ram Vs Goma Devi & Ors.Citation No. 1999 CRLJ 1789.

43. No alimony to wife who deserted her husband. (HC Punjab and Haryana), Hbl Mohinder Pal J., order on 19-03-2009, Crl Misc No. M-24684 of 2008 (O&M), Poonam Vs Mahender Kumar.

44. Husband parent’s property should not be counted in maintenance. (High Court Delhi), Hbl J. Aruna Suresh, order on 02-07-2010, CM (M) No. 1045 of 2008 and C M No. 13003 of 2008, Sushila Devi Vs Joginder Kumar.

45. Permanent alimony cancelled. (HC Mumbai), Hbl JJ. A. P. Despande and Smt. R. P. Sondurbaldota, order on 08-04-2010, Appeal No. 116 of 2002, Family Court 47/ 2002, Arun Kashinath Despande Vs Inumati R. Deo.

46. Wife deserted her husband, no maintenance. (HC Mumbai), Hbl R. S. Mohite J. , order on 04-02-2005, Meena Dinesh Parmar Vs Dinesh H. Parmar. Citation Nos. AIR 2005 Bom 298; 2005 (4) Bom CR 672; 2005 (2) Mh LJ 305.

47. Wife living separate without reason no maintenance. (HC Kerala), Hbl M. Sashidharan Nambiar J., order on 03-12-2010, Crl MC No. 1893 of 2006, Manoshanthi & Ors Vs Ramachandran & State.

48. Wife living separate from husband not entitled for maintenance. (HC Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order on 27-08-2010, Crl M C No. 491 of 2009, Sanjay Bhardwaj Vs State & Anr. Citation No. 2010 (118) DRJ 385.

49. Qualified wife should work for maintenance. (HC Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order on 01-10-2008, CM (M) 1153 of 2008 (DEL) , Kavita Prasad Vs Ram Ashrey Prasad.

50. 125 CrPC is Civil in Nature. (Supreme Court), Hbl Dr. Arijit Pasayat J., order on 05-06-2007, Appeal (Crl.) 795 of 2001, Iqbal Bano Vs State of UP & Ors. Citation Nos. AIR 2007 SC 2215; (2007) 6 SCC 785; 2007 AIR SWC 3880; (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 258; Cr LR (SC) 554.

51. NBW cannot be issued for nonpayment of maintenance. (HC Kerala), Hbl J. Sashidharan Nambiar, order on 10-12-2010, Crl MC No. 4843 of 2010, Shanvas Vs Raseena & State of Kerala.

52. Magistrate can grant interim maintenance. (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl JJ. Venkataramiah E.S.T., Mishra R.B., order on 09-10-1985, Savitri Vs Govind Singh Rawat. Citation Nos. 1986 AIR SC 984; 1985 SCC (4) 337; 1985 SCALE (2) 697.

53. Wife’s property, income sources must be considered in CrPC 125. Also the order of maintenance if made to pay from date of application, need not record the reason for doing so. In general it is payable from date of order. (SC) Hbl C.K. Thakker, and D. K. Jain , JJ. Order on 28 July 2008, Civil Appeal No. 4666 of 2008, Shail Kumari Devi & Anr Vs Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak. Citation No. AIR 2008 SC 3006; (2008) 9 SCC 632; 2008 (3) ALT (Crl) 171 (SC).

54. No maintenance in the Domestic Violence Act 2005, 125 CrPC is applicable. (HC Bombay), Nagpur Hbl M. L. Tahaliyani J. , Order on May 05, 2014. WP No. 32 of 2014, Koushik Vs Sau Sangeeta Koushik and Ors.

55. Wife fined 2 Lakhs wrt DV Act proceedings for “making mockery of the judicial process”, Contempt and for suppression of facts. (HC Delhi), Hbl J. Vipin Sanghi, reserved on 20-12-2011 Order on 21-02-2012, CONT, CAS (C) 815/2011 and C.M. No. 20360/2011, Douglas Breckenridge Vs Jhilmil Breckenridge.

56. Maintenance in 125 CrPC from the date of order. (HC Calcutta), Hbl J, Ashim Kumar Roy, Order on 05-03-2010, C.R.R. No. 257 of 2005, Sudarshan Agarwal Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. Citation No. LS/Cal 2010/265.

57. Not doing cross examination of other witness on one pretext to other, punished with cost of Rs. 25,000/- with warning. (HC Delhi), Hbl, J, S.N. Dhingra, Order on March 09, 2010, CM (M) No. 496/2009, Rampyari & Ors. Vs Ms. Kamlesh.

58. Steps made for the trial Courts while dealing with the civil trials. Punishment imposed Rs. 2 Lakhs on producing false documents, concealment of the facts and false & fabricated frivolous litigation to get wrongdoers benefits. (SC), Hbl JJ, Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma, date of Order July, 4, 2011, Civil Appeal Nos. 4912 -4913 of 2011, Arising SLP (C) Nos. 3157-31-58 of 2011, Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors. Vs Nirmala Devi and Ors. Citation Nos. (2011) 8 SCC 249; 2011(6) SCALE 677; JT 2011 (8) SC 90; 2011 AIR SCW 4000; 2011 (4) Supreme 625.

59. HC on double jeopardy, Article 20(2) of Constitution of India specifies that a person once trialed for an offence cannot be made to trial for same or some other offence on same set of fact and for same cause of actions. The same is termed as Double Jeopardy in criminal cases and Section 300 covers it in civil cases. (HC Madras) Madurai Bench, Coram Hbl J, V. Periya Karuppiah, date of Order 28/04/2009, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.11066 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2009, K. Kamala & Anr. Vs M.Parimala & Ors. Citation No. 2009 (3) MLJ (Crl) 450.

60. No alimony to wife who deserted her husband. (SC) Uphold decision of HC Punjab and Haryana. Revision petition Dismissed. Hbl JJ V. S. Sirpurkar and Sudarshan Reddy, Order on 16-11-2009, SPL CRL MP No (s) 18899, Poonam Vs Mahender Kumar.

61. Wife shall be entitled to claim maintenance under one of the two orders of the Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC and the District Judge, under Section 24 HMA Act respectively and it would be for her to choose as to which of the two orders she wants to enforce. ( HC Haryana and Punjab). Hbl G.S. Chahal, Order on 25-09-1991, Paramjit Kaur Vs Surinder Singh. Citation No. (1992) 101 PLR 155.

62. This reasoning of the learned Chief Justice appeals to us.
We are concerned with the Code which is complete on the topic and any defence against and order passed under section 125 Crl.P.C. must be founded on a provision in the Code. Section 125 CrPC is a provisionto protect the weaker of the two parties, namely, the neglected wife. If an order for maintenance has been made against the deserter it will operate until vacated or altered in terms of the provisions of the Code itself. If the husband has a case under Section 125 (4) (5) or section 127 of the Code it is open to him to initiate appropriate proceedings.
But until the original order for maintenance is modified or cancelled by a higher Court or is varied or vacated in terms of section 125 (4) or (5) or section 127, its validity survives. It is enforceable and no plea that there has been cohabitation in interregnum or that there has been a compromise between the parties can hold good as a valid defence. (SC) Bench Hbl JJ Krishna Iyer , V.R., Shingal, P.N., and Sen, A.P., Review Petition No. 95 of 1978; Order on 13-11-1978.

Bhupinder Singh Vs Daljit Kaur. Citation No. 1979 AIR 442, 1979 SCR (2) 292, 1979 SCC (3) 352

Important Cr.P.C Sections In Trial Court

Important Cr.P.C Sections In Trial Court

The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C) is a procedural law which provides a mechanism in which way the criminal trial to be conducted. It gives the administration of criminal law. The primary object of the criminal justice system is to ensure that the trial is to be fair. The accused can prove their innocents through this trial and the guilty person should not be escaped from the punishment. The trial began after framing the charge and end with the judge’s declaration. The trial classified into two schedules the offenses classified under I.P.C. and the offenses classified other than I.P.C. The nature of the trial depends on the seriousness of the offense.

Sessions Trial Procedure

Police case­225 to 237 Cr.P.C

Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C  starting with sec.225 and ending with sec.237 deals with the manners on which the trial to occur before a court Session. A prosecution should be conducted by a public prosecutor before a court session. When accused come before the court the public prosecutor should open the case by describing the charge brought against the accused and the evidence that proves his guilt. After considering the evidence from the prosecutor and the accused the session court make a decision. If the documents produced by the prosecutor have no grounds for proceeding against the accused, session court shall discharge the accused. If the judge found the documents proves the accused guilty, then he makes decision about the charge and he will write it. At this stage, the judge will only consider the prosecution’s document and he will not consider any documents from the accused.

Complaint case: S.190 to 210 of Cr.P.C.

Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C deals with the provisions to handle the complaint cases. Section 190 to 204 deals with the evidence of cases and section 190(1) says that the Magistrate can take evidence of offense upon a complaint, upon a police report or upon his own knowledge or report from another person.

Chapter XV of Cr.P.C says about the procedure to follow by the Magistrate when a complaint is made to him. The Magistrate can enquire the evidence by himself or with the help of the police. After the investigation, the court will examine the documents and if it found wrong then the accused will be dismissed and if it found true then the Magistrate will issue the summons.

The other Important Cr.P.C sections in trial court are

317 Crpc – Petition filied for absence of accused

207 Crpc – For copies

311 Crpc – To recall witness at any stage after trial

91 Crpc – To produce documents

205 Crpc – Apperence dispence of accused

239 Crpc – Discharge of accused

257 Crpc – withdrawal of complaint

301 Crpc – To assisting the prosecution

302 Crpc – Private prosecution

156(3) Crpc – Direction to register a case

173(5)(8) Crpc – Additional documents to be filed after filing a charge sheet

167(2) Crpc Bail in mandatory provision in Sessions case -90days Below 3 years punishment cases – 60
days

437 Crpc Lower court bail

438 Crpc sessions bail / Anticipatory bail

439 Crpc High court bail
*************************************