Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: July 25 - July 31 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325 NOMINAL INDEX Mr.P.Adhavan Seral v. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317 Siva v. State by Inspector of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 Jaisankar v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319 Irfana Nasreen v. The State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 320 S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321 Sureshkumar v. The Regional Passport Officer and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 322 R.Rajesh Kumar v. The State of Tamilnadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (mad) 323 M/s.Gharpure Engg. & Construction (Pvt) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner (ST), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 324 Dr.R.Senthilkumar v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 325 REPORTS 1. S.11 RTI Act | Inter-Caste Marriage Certificate Submitted By Persons Seeking Priority In Public Employment Contain Personal Info, Notice Mandatory: Madras HC Case Title: Mr.P.Adhavan Seral v. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 317 The Madras High Court recently reiterated that informations touching upon the right of privacy of third parties cannot be sought through RTI applications without putting them on notice. Justice Anand Venkatesh was dealing with a plea seeking directions to the Tamil Nadu Information Commission to provide details with respect to persons who have registered themselves in the district employment office under the special category of Inter Caste Marriage and to furnish the certificates provided by such persons. 2. Statements Recorded U/S 164 CrPC Are Not Substantive Evidence, Can Only Be Used For Corroboration: Madras High Court Reiterates Case Title: Siva v. State by Inspector of Police Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 318 The Madras High Court recently set aside an order of conviction of a man accused of murder after observing that the trial court was misled in corroborating the statement of witnesses recorded under S. 164 CrPC with the medical evidence when in fact all the independent witnesses had turned hostile. Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira took note of the judicial precedents where the courts have clearly laid down that the statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC are not substantive evidence and that they can only be used to corroborate/contradict the statement of a witness. 3. When Prosecution Itself Is Infested With Motive, Court Can Interfere & Quash The Same To Prevent Abuse Of Process Of Law: Madras High Court Case Title: Jaisankar v. The State and another Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 319 While quashing a final report against a man accused of being in possession of an intoxicating drug and charged with Section 4(1) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act 1937, the Madras High Court observed that the prosecution was a malafide one. After going through the materials available on record, Justice N Sathish Kumar observed that though it was alleged that 96 rum bottles were found in possession of the accused, there was no evidence except the statement of the investigating officer. The court also noted that even though the courts do not generally go into the materials collected by the police, if it was found that the prosecution itself was without any material, the same could be quashed. 4. Failure To Disclose Impotency Before Marriage: Madras High Court Directs Police To Register Offences For Cheating Case Title: Irfana Nasreen v. The State Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 320 Allowing an application for alteration of FIR filed by an estranged wife, the Madras High Court recently directed the respondent police to register offences under Section 417 and 420 of IPC for cheating against the husband who deceived the wife by non-disclosing his impotency. Justice V Sivagnanam of the Madurai Bench directed the respondent police to add the offences along with already existing Section 498-A and 406 and submit the final report within four months after investigation. 5. Freedom Fighter's Pension Cannot Be Said To Be "Income" For Denying Benefit Of Family Pension: Madras High Court Case Title: S.Jeevalakshmi v. The Principal Accountant General (A&E) and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 321 The Madras High Court recently reiterated that the Freedom Fighter's Pension could not be brought under the category of family income for grant of family pension. It observed that Freedom Fighter's pension is given to honor the sacrifices made by them for the nation in the freedom struggle. Justice B Pugalendhi thus allowed a woman's plea to draw a family pension arising out of her mother's service in addition to the freedom fighter's pension. 6. Madras High Court Gives Clean Chit To IPS Officer In Fake Passport Case; Lauds...

Madras High Court Weekly Roundup: July 25 - July 31 2022

Upasana Sajeev

Tags