ABETMENT TO SUICIDE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | ‘Subjecting child to corporal punishment for reforming him cannot be a part of education’; FIR refused to be quashed against teacher for abetment of suicide
In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha*, CJ., and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., stated that it was evident that imposition of corporal punishment on the child was not in consonance with his right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court stated that corporal punishment was not in keeping with a child’s dignity. Besides, it was cruel to subject the child to physical violence in school in the name of discipline or education. Child being a precious national resource was to be nurtured and attended with tenderness and care and not with cruelty. Subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him could not be part of education. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Abetment case against Hostel warden in Thanjavur Schoolgirl Suicide case refused to be quashed
In a petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), against the impugned chargesheet and the proceedings arising therefrom and quash the same as illegal, G.Ilangovan, J. refused to quash the chargesheet filed against Sister Sagaya Mary, the hostel warden of St. Michael’s Girls Hostel, attached to Sacred Heart Higher Secondary School in Thanjavur, for allegedly abetting the suicide of a 12th standard student. Despite the defense’s request to dismiss the charges, the Court found that sufficient grounds existed for the charges to be investigated further and refused to intervene at this stage of the proceedings. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Threat to falsely implicate in rape and eve-teasing case amounts to abetment to suicide
In an application for quashing of criminal proceedings for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, a single-judge bench comprising of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., upheld the initiation of criminal proceedings against the applicants under Section 306 IPC, emphasising the significance of continuous harassment and its impact on the deceased, leading to his suicide. The Court reiterated the necessity of a positive act and clear mens rea in abetment cases, aligning with principles established by the Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., (2010) 1 SCC 750. Read more HERE
ACQUITTAL
MADRAS HIGH COURT | ‘No misconception on the part of victim regarding promise of marriage with convict’: Conviction of rape accused set aside
In a criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, M. Dhandapani, J. has set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the convict, and said that the victim is not under any misconception and that the convict cannot be held to have misused the prosecutrix under the pretext of promise of marriage which led to her consent, as she had been a willing party to sexual intercourse multiple times, which denote implied and explicit consent by her. Therefore, the Court held that the act of the convict would not fall within the parameters of rape. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Conviction and 3-year sentence of former AIADMK Minister Balakrishna Reddy in a 1998 Riot case, set aside
In a batch of criminal appeals filed by former AIADMK Minister Balakrishna Reddy and other Ministers against the conviction order passed by the Special Court for cases related to elected members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai, and set aside the same and consequently acquit them, G. Jayachandran, J. set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted all the convicts of their charges, as the charges were not proved beyond doubt. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Making wife sleep on carpet not cruelty’; Conviction u/s 306 IPC of husband and in-laws, set aside
In the present case, appeal was filed to challenge the judgment and order dated 15-04-2004 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in a case wherein appellants were held guilty for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 343 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). A Single Judge Bench of Abhay S. Waghwase, J., opined that making the wife (deceased) merely sleep on carpet would not amount to cruelty and preventing her to mix with neighbour could not be termed as harassment. The Court stated that there was no evidence to show that at the point of suicide or any proximity to the suicide, there was any demand, cruelty, or maltreatment to connect them with the suicidal death and what triggered the suicide was a mystery. The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, quashed, and set aside the conviction, and acquitted appellants of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. Read more HERE
ARREST
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Arrest declared illegal as grounds of arrest were communicated to accused’s wife but not to the accused
In the present case, petitioner sought a declaration that his arrest in relation to FIR dated 31-10-2023, registered at Karad City Police Station, Satara was illegal and in gross violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and he also sought a declaration that the consequential remand order dated 01-11-2023 and all the subsequent remand orders passed by the JMFC, Karad, were null and void and were in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | [Excise Liquor Policy] | Arrest not in contravention with law; Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest dismissed
A petition was filed by Arvind Kejriwal under Article 226 and 227 read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) challenging the arrest of the petitioner by Directorate of Enforcement on the ground that the arrest was in violation of Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) and it has been prayed that the arrest order dated 21-03-2024 and the proceedings pursuant thereto be declared illegal, non-est, arbitrary and unconstitutional along with declaring the order vide which the petitioner was remanded to custody of Directorate of Enforcement be also quashed on the grounds of it being passed in a mechanical and patently routine manner. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., dismissed the petition for release of the petitioner. Read more HERE
BAIL
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Bail granted to former CM Hemant Soren in money laundering case involving illegal acquisition of land
In an application filed by the petitioner, Hemant Soren, seeking bail, as he was in custody in connection with a case registered under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’), Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J., opined that the statement of persons under Section 50 of the PMLA, designated the petitioner in the acquisition and possession of the property in 2010 without any material worth consideration. Further, all this while none of the ousted persons approached the competent authority to register any complaint, which was conveniently discounted by the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’). The Court stated that the ED’s claim that its timely action had prevented the illegal acquisition of the land by forging and manipulating the records, appeared to be an ambiguous statement when considered in the backdrop of the allegation that the land was already acquired and possessed by the petitioner from 2010 onwards. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | [Delhi Excise Liquor Policy] Trial Court’s order granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, stayed
In a plea filed by Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) challenging the bail granted to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Rouse Avenue Court on 20-06-2024, Sudhir Kumar Jain, J., imposed a stay on the bail, and stated that the Trial Court while passing the impugned order did not appropriately appreciate the material/documents submitted on record and pleas taken by ED and the averments/grounds as raised in the petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’) require serious consideration while dealing with said petition. Read more HERE
TRIPURA HIGH COURT | [NDPS Act] Mere filing of charge-sheet neither a ground nor has persuasive value to grant bail
An application was filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for cancellation of bail granted to respondent-accused by the Special Judge, Sepahijala District, Sonamura (‘the Special Judge’) vide Order dated 30-01-2024 in a case registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the NDPS Act’). Arindam Lodh, J., opined that the Special Judge had not kept in mind that granting bail to an accused for committing offences under the penal provisions of the NDPS Act was an exception and not a rule. Thus, the order dated 30-01-2024 was quashed and set aside. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | [PM Modi Fake Video Case] Arrest of Congress Social Media Coordinator declared illegal; Bail granted
In an application by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) to seek 3 days police custody remand of the accused, who was arrested due to a complaint that he had allegedly posted fake, morphed, and misleading information and photos of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to malign his reputation, Akanksha Garg, J. dismissed the application and held the arrest to be illegal since no proper notice was served under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), as the accused was not given sufficient time to join the investigation. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail denied to Amandeep Singh Dhall in Liquor Excise Policy Scam case
In a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed on behalf of applicant-Amandeep Singh Dhall for regular bail, a Single Judge bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. considering the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that an FIR already stands registered against Amandeep Singh Dhall for paying bribe to an officer of Enforcement Directorate for getting his name removed from the present case, the Court held that it did not find any grounds for the grant of bail to Amandeep Singh Dhall. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Indulged into activity of inciting like-minded people to join them’; Bail plea of three PFI members accused of conspiring to make India an Islamic State dismissed
In the present case, three appeals were decided together, wherein there was a prayer for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) pending on the file of the Special Judge, Nashik, registered with Anti-Terrorist Squad Police Station, Kalachowki, Mumbai, under Sections 121-A, 153-A, 120-B, 109, 116, 201 of the Penal Code (‘IPC’) and under Section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’). The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari* and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., opined that even if no overt act or violations were carried out till now, the material on record clearly indicated that prima facie evidence of conspiracy to commit offence/s punishable under Section 121 of IPC was made out. The Court also opined that the appellants were given specified specialized duties to further the conspiracy and the allegations against them were well-founded and thus could not be ignored or brushed aside. Thus, the Court dismissed the appeals and held that the trial Court did not commit any error in passing the impugned orders. Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail granted to Bhavani Revanna in kidnapping case; Directed to not enter districts of Mysore & Hassan except for the purpose of investigation
While considering the instant petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed by Bhavani Revanna, mother of suspended Janata Dal (Secular) leader Prajjwal Revanna, the Bench of Krishna S. Dixit, J.*, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and clarified that she shall not enter the districts of Mysore & Hassan in any circumstance except for the purpose of investigation. Read more HERE
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT | [Haldwani Violence] ‘Appeal lies u/s 21 of NIA Act before Division Bench’; Bail plea of Abdul Malik dismissed
In the present case, applicant had sought his release on bail as he was in judicial custody for case filed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 395, 323, 332, 341, 342, 353, 412, 427, and 436 of the Penal Code, 1860; Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932; Sections 3/25, 4/25, 7/25 of the Arms Act, 1959; and Section 15/16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1976 (‘UAPA’), registered in Police Station Banbhoolpura, District Nainital. A Single Judge Bench of Ravindra Maithani, J., held that the present bail application was not maintainable before this Court, instead an appeal would lie under Section 21 of the NIA Act before the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the Court dismissed the bail application as being not maintainable. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail denied to K. Kavitha in cases related to Delhi Liquor Policy scam
In a matter of two bail applications filed by Kalvakuntla Kavitha in cases registered against her by the Directorate of Enforcement and the Central Bureau of Investigation, arising out of similar facts, a Single Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. denied bail to K. Kavitha and held that no case could be made out for the grant of a regular bail. Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Bail granted to DYF leader Kalatan Dasgupta and restrained authorities from taking coercive action
In a petition filed by Kalatan Dasgupta, a prominent leader of the Democratic Youth Federation (‘DYF’), seeking immediate relief from unlawful detention and to challenge the illegal actions of the respondent authorities for arresting him in blatant disregard of procedural safeguards, a Single Judge Bench of Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J. directed Kalatan Dasgupta to be released on bail and restrained the respondent authorities from taking any coercive action against him. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail granted to Chief Business Strategy Officer of IL&FS Securities Services Ltd. in Dalmia Cements fraud case
In a bail application filed by the Head of the Business Department and the Chief Business Strategy Officer of the IL & FS Securities Services Ltd. under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to seek regular bail in connection to a First Information Report registered under Sections 420/409/467/471/120-B/34 of the Penal Code, 1860, a Single Judge Bench of Vikas Mahajan, J. noted that the custody of the Officer was no longer required and hence granted him regular bail. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bail denied to BRAHMOS former engineer convicted for sharing secret information of BRAHMOS Missiles to Pakistan
In the present case, an application was filed in terms of Section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking appellant’s suspension of execution of sentence and for enlargement on bail during pendency of appeal. Appellant was charged for the offences punishable under Section 66-F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the IT Act’); and Sections 3(1)(c), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d) and 5(3) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 registered with ATS Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Bail granted to 4 accused persons charged for alleged involvement in the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh
The single Judge Bench of S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.*, on 4-9-2024 granted bail to 4 accused persons charged for their alleged involvement in the murder of journalist Gauri Lankesh in 2017. The accused persons were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 118, 203 & 35 of Penal Code, 1860; Sections 25(1) & 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3) & 3(4) of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (COCA Act). Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Role of Md. Haneef was to help in publication of ‘Islamic Movement’ magazine as a proofreader, not author’; Bail granted to alleged member of SIMI
In an application filed to seek regular bail in a First Information Report (‘FIR’) registered under Sections 153-A/153-B/120-B/34/174 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3/10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’), a Single Judge Bench of Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. considered the fact that the name of the applicant surfaced after 22 days of registration of the FIR and directed to release him on regular bail. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Allegations are general in nature’; Bail granted to trustees, homeopathic doctor allegedly providing bogus doctors to M. T. Agarwal Hospital
In the present case, bail applications were filed by applicants seeking bail in a case registered with Mulund Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Sections 112, 117, 120-B, 302, 307, 416, 419, 426, 465, 471 read with Section 341 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and also Section 33 of the Maharashtra Medical Practitioners Act, 1961 (‘the 1961 Act’) for providing bogus doctors to M. T. Agarwal Hospital. A Single Judge Bench of Manish Pitale, J., opined that the allegations were omnibus and general in nature and neither the statement leading to registration of FIR nor the documents that were placed on record, during investigation, identify individual deaths or sufferance of individuals due to the alleged acts of commission and omission on the part of applicants. The Court thus released the three applicants on bail. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Bail denied to SP Leader Moid Ahmad in Ayodhya Minor Gang rape case
In a bail application filed by Samajwadi party leader Moid Ahmad seeking bail in case under Sections 376-DA, 506 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Section 5g(j)(ii)(l) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (‘POCSO Act’), P.S. Pura Kalandar, District Ayodhya. by Pankaj Bhatia,J. taking into account the fact that during the investigation, pressure was exercised for compromise and taking into account the huge variance in the social and the financial status of Moid Ahmad and the victim, viewed that if he is enlarged on bail at this stage, he can adversely affect the trial, thus rejected his bail application. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Say ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’, Salute tricolour 21 times”; Bail granted to accused for shouting “Pakistan Zindabad, Hindustan Murdabad”
In an application filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking regular bail where the applicant was arrested for allegedly shouting slogans “Pakistan Zindabad, Hindustan Murdabad” at a public place, a single-judge bench of Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J., granted bail to the applicant but imposed stringent conditions, such as, mandating the applicant to salute the national flag 21 times and shout “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” each time at the police station. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | [Pune Porche Accident Case] Anticipatory bail denied to co-accused minor’s father, who changed blood samples
In the present case, applicant was one of the accused persons concerning FIR dated 19-05-2024, registered at Police Station Yerawada, District Pune, for offences under Sections 304, 338, 337, 427, 279, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, and 109 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 184, 185, 3(1) 180, 5(1) 171, 119-A, and 199/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A Single Judge Bench of Manish Pitale, J., opined that the deception in the present case was practised by labeling the subject blood sample as that of the minor son of applicant, while it was the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal, thus, applicant was part of the conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC. The Court opined that there was a strong prima facie case made out against applicant for offence committed under Section 467 of IPC read with Section 46417 of IPC. The Court noted that the investigating authority stated that the Porsche car, was being driving in a drunken state and in such a high speed that it hit the motorcycle from behind on which the victims were riding, causing their death. The Court agreed with the contention that applicant remained absconding, which created an impediment for the investigating authority to fully and effectively investigate into the matter and thus, held that applicant had failed to make out a case in his favour for this Court to exercise discretion for granting anticipatory bail to him as the ingredients of the offences were prima facie made out against applicant. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail granted to property dealer accused of death of Head Constable during 2020 North-East Delhi Riots Case
A petition was filed seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) now Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in FIR dated 26-02-2020 registered at Police Station- Dayalpur for offences punishable under Sections 186, 353, 332, 333, 323, 109, 144, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 188, 336, 427, 307, 302, 308, 201, 120-B and 34 of Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (“PDPP Act”). Chandra Dhari Singh, J., granted regular bail, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to few conditions. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Men have pride and dignity too’: Bail granted to actor-director Balachandra Menon in 2007 sexual assault case
In a bail application filed by well-known director, actor, and script writer Balachandra Menon in a 2007 sexual assault case, the Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J., held that the present case has been registered 17 years after the alleged incident and the accused is a well-known cine artist. The Court stated that men also have pride and dignity. Reiterating the principle of bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the Court granted bail to Balachandra. Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Founder & Chairman of Sri Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank accused of misappropriating approximately Rs. 1553 crores denied bail
In a criminal petition filed to seek bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’), a Single Judge Bench of H.P. Sandesh, J. rejected the petition and denied bail to the accused. The Court took note of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) which casts a bar on granting bail to a person accused of committing an offence under PMLA. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Anticipatory bail granted to wife’s uncle in Atul Subhash suicide case
In a Transit Anticipatory Bail Application at the instance of the Wife (Nikita Singhania), Mother-in-Law, Brother-in-Law and Uncle-in-Law of the deceased for offences under Sections 108, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for a period of six weeks on such condition as may be imposed by this Court Ashutosh Srivastava, J. Granted 4 week transit anticipatory bail to the accused 4, and said that there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the accused to approach the Courts including High Courts where the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the case is registered. Read more HERE.
KERALA HIGH COURT | Bail denied to accused persons in Puthiyakavu Temple blast case
In a bail application concerning the Puthiyakavu Bhagavathy Temple Fireworks explosion case, C.S. Dias. J, while refusing the bail application, viewed that the accused persons are not entitled to be enlarged on bail, as it would have a deleterious impact on the society and justice would be thwarted. Further, the Court issued a direction for Kerala Legal Service Authority (‘KELSA’) to explore the possibilities of organizing a Adalat for the purpose of redressing the grievances of fireworks explosion aggrieved persons. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Bail granted to Siddique Kappan’s co-accused Masood in UAPA Case
In an appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 filed by accused (‘Masood’) challenging the order passed by Special Judge, NIA/ATS, Additional District and Sessions Judge, in bail application for offences under Sections 153-A, 295-A, 124-A, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 17 and 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 65 and 72 of IT Act, 2000, whereby bail application of Masood was rejected, the division bench of Attau Rahman Masoodi and Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, JJ. has granted bail to Masood, subject to certain conditions as other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail. Read more HERE
CONTEMPT OF COURT
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Sub-Registrar and litigant held guilty for fabricating Court documents; Sentences them to 2 months imprisonment and fine
In a suo motu civil contempt proceedings initiated against the contemnors for fabricating documents which were produced in court for getting favourable orders, N. Sathish Kumar, J. while holding the Sub Registrar and the litigant guilty of contempt of court, sentenced them to undergo a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months with a fine amount of Rs.2,000/- each. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Advocate’s vexatious contempt plea against Justice Sunita Agrawal, dismissed
In contempt application filed by an Advocate under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (‘Act’) with the prayer to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the then puine Judge of this Court Justice Sunita Agrawal (now Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court), the division bench of Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, JJ. while rejecting the present Criminal Contempt Application, for being wholly misconceived, frivolous, irresponsible and merit-less, said that in the interest of proper functioning of this Institution, such applications should be discouraged. More so, when the litigant happens to be an Advocate from whom the Court is entitled to except certain degree of responsibility and restraint as an Officer of the Court. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | ‘Healthy and constructive criticism should always be welcome’; Criminal contempt proceedings against a man for his pleadings against a Judge, dropped
In a criminal contempt petition listed after suo motu notice was taken by the Single Bench regarding the averments of the respondent in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Division Bench of Anupinder Singh Grewal* and Kirti Singh, JJ., opined that the pleadings in the petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by the respondent, did not suggest that they were mala fide or in good faith. The pleadings could have been better worded, but it was difficult to conclude that they were mala fide. The respondent was only seeking expeditious disposal of his case. Further, the Court noted that the respondent had furnished his unqualified and unconditional apology. The respondent undertook that he would not use any contemptuous words/language in future and would abide by all the conditions imposed by the Court. Thus, the Court stated that the action of the respondent did not constitute criminal contempt of court and accordingly, dropped the criminal contempt proceedings. Read more HERE
CONVICTION
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | [Organised Crime Syndicate] | Trial Court’s order convicting construction contractor under MCOCA, upheld
The instant appeal was filed by the appellants under Section 12, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”), impugning the order of the Special Judge, Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay, (“Trial Court”), wherein their application for dropping the charges under the MCOCA and for transferring the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge had been rejected. The appellants had been convicted under various provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), MCOCA, and the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. The Division Bench comprising of A.S. Gadkari* and Shyam C. Chandak, JJ., upheld the Trial Court’s order, finding the appellants indicted with the organised crime syndicate, and there the MCOCA provisions could not be dropped qua them. Read more HERE
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT | ‘Every possibility for prudent man to lose temper on seeing wife with another man’: Husband’s conviction u/s 302 for killing wife’s ex-husband, modified
In a criminal appeal challenging the decision of the Trial Court, whereby the convict was convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code (‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment, the Division Bench of S. Vaidyanathan., CJ.*, and W. Diengdoh., JJ., partly allowed the appeal and modified the offence to fall within the ambit of the Exception 2 of Section 300 of the IPC. The convict was sentenced to three years imprisonment. Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | Conviction overturned in 12-year-old religious riot & mob attack murder case
In a criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 against the Trial Court’s decision, whereby the convict was sentenced to undergo lifetime imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000 for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 436 r/w Section 149 of Penal Code (“IPC”), 1860 and for offences under Sections 302/201 r/w Section 34 of the IPC was imposed. The Division Bench of G. Satapathy* and D. Dash, JJ. on analysis of oral and documentary evidence found that the prosecution case against the convict was questionable, the witnesses’ evidence was suspicious, and there were no clear and conclusive evidence to support the convict’s guilt. Hence, the order of conviction by the Trial Court was set aside. Read more HERE
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT | Not necessary to prove motive behind offence, when eyewitness testimony is credible; conviction upheld
In a criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20-11-2017 and 27-11-2017, respectively, passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner-V, Ranchi (‘the Trial Court’), whereby the appellant-convict was found guilty under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of Ananda Sen* and Subhash Chand, JJ., stated that the testimony of eyewitnesses could not be discredited nor there was any material to disbelieve them and their evidence had not been shaken. The Court stated that when there was an eyewitness, who had seen the commission of murder and their evidence was credible, it was not necessary that the prosecution had to prove the motive behind the offence. Thus, the Court stated that the impugned judgment and order of sentence did not want any interference and accordingly, dismissed the present appeal. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Act quite close to cannibalism’; Death sentence of a man who killed and intended to eat his mother, confirmed
In the present case, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur (‘the ASJ, Kolhapur’) made a reference under Section 366(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for confirmation of death sentence awarded by him to respondent-convict in a case, decided on 08-07-2021. The ASJ, Kolhapur convicted respondent of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentenced him to hang by neck, till he is dead. A fine of Rs 25,000 was also imposed and in default, respondent was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj K. Chavan*, JJ., opined that manner in which respondent had murdered his mother was brutal, cruel, and barbaric, indicated pathological cannibalism of respondent and there was no remorse, penitence, or repentance on his face. The Court also opined that respondent was not at all fit for any kind of reformatory and rehabilitation scheme and therefore, confirmed the death penalty imposed by the Trial Court. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Conviction of former Samajwadi Party MLA Irfan Solanki’s in arson case, upheld
In a criminal appeal filed by former Samajwadi Party Member of Legislative Assembly(‘MLA’) Irfan Solanki’s against the conviction order under Sections 147, 436 427, 323 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the division bench of Rajiv Gupta and Surendra Singh, JJ., held that although disqualification from the post of MLA due to conviction could lead to injustice and irreversible consequences, the Court must also consider wider ramifications of the stay of conviction. Accordingly, the Court rejected the appeal stating that Irfan Solanki had been properly convicted and has a long history of criminal antecedents. Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | ‘Rape of dead body is horrendous but not rape’: Mother’s plea against acquittal of man for offence under S. 363 and S. 376 (3) of IPC, rejected
In a set of two appeals filed by convicts 1 and 2 challenging their conviction vide the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court under Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 376(3), 363, 302, and 201 of IPC as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC-ST Act’) respectively; and a third appeal filed by the deceased’s mother challenging the convict 1’s acquittal for certain other offences, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha*, CJ and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., upheld the conviction of the two convicts stating that the prosecution had established their guilt and dismissed the appeal of the deceased’s mother saying that although rape of a dead body was a horrendous act, it did not amount to rape since the victim needed to be alive for such conviction. Read more HERE
CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Death sentences commuted to life imprisonment of 25 years without remission in Bulandshahr Gang-Rape case
In the Bulandshahr moving car gang rape case, the division bench of Arvind Singh Sangwan* and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, JJ. upheld the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the accused persons committed the offence of kidnapping the victim who was below the age of 18 years and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her and then by committing her murder by strangulating with dupatta had thrown her dead body near a drain. However, the Court commuted death sentence to life imprisonment for a fixed term of 25 years without any remission as the Trial Court has not recorded any finding as to how the present case is rarest of the rare case even though the accused has committed the gravest offence. Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Appellate Authority can consider interim application seeking stay despite absence of any specific provision in POSH Act
While considering the instant petition challenging a final report of internal committee against Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace and a consequent transfer order, the Bench of S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.*, explained that despite the absence of specific provision in POSH Act for granting of interim order, the Appellate Authority would have the power to consider the interim application. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Internal Complaints Committee obligated to attempt Conciliation to settle sexual harassment case before starting inquiry
In a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an Assistant Professor at Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (NIT), Bhopal following allegations of sexual harassment made by students, a single-judge bench of Sanjay Dwivedi, J., deemed the internal inquiry, procedurally defective and contrary to natural justice and quashed the suspension orders and subsequent disciplinary actions. Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | [Rape & Murder of 6-yr-old] ‘Every saint has past & every sinner has future, human endeavour should be to hate sin & not sinner’; Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment
A reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was filed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Presiding Officer, Children’s Court, Cuttack (‘Trial Court’) for confirmation of the death sentence imposed on the convict. A criminal appeal was filed by the convict against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. The Division Bench of SK Sahoo and RK Pattanaik, JJ. dismissed the death sentence reference and allowed the criminal appeal in part. Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | [POCSO Case] | An award-winning National hockey player’s achievements earned through hard work, can’t be termed as ‘Influence’
While considering the instant petition filed by noted Hockey player, Varun Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in case registered against him under Sections 376(3) and 420 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as under Sections 4(2), 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Bench of Rajendra Badamikar, J.*, granted conditional anticipatory bail to the hockey player. The Court opined that the petitioner cannot be termed as an influential person merely because he is an award-winning National Hockey Player. The Court noted that the petitioner’s achievements which were earned because of his hard work, cannot be termed as an influence. However, the Court also pointed out that the records disclose that the family of the victim itself is a highly influential family, with her father being a Senior Police Officer. Read more HERE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Commenting about dress of girls, touching them inappropriately on their back, cheek and neck constitutes an offence u/s 7 of POCSO Act; FIR refused to be quashed
In a petition filed by the accused for quashing of FIR registered under Section 354-A of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Rakesh Kainthla, J., noted that many girls accused that they were touched inappropriately on their back, cheek and neck, and comments were passed on their dresses, and said that these acts constituted the commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which provided punishment for physical contact with a minor with sexual intent. The Court stated that the allegations made by the girls duly established a prima facie commission of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Thus, the FIR could not be ordered to be quashed at this stage. Read more HERE
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT | Advocate General directed to seek information about non-payment of compensation to victims’ parents/victims of sexual offences
In a suo motu public interest litigation regarding distribution of compensation amount to victim/parents of the victim under the Yon Utpidan/Anya Apradhon Se Pidit Mahilaon/Uttarjiviyon Ke Liye Kshatipurti Yojna, 2018 (‘the Scheme’), the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., after the perusal of the report submitted by Member Secretary, Chhattisgarh State Legal Services Authority, noted that as in February 2024, in 753 cases, a total of Rs. 26,41,00,200 was pending for its payment. The report also stated that because of lack of allotment of fund, the payment could not be made to the victims/family members of the victim till date. Thus, the Court directed Advocate General to seek necessary information as to why the compensation had not been paid to the victims/parents of the victim till date and submit his response before the next date. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Rape matters cannot be resolved through money or out of court settlements; Plea for quashing of rape FIR rejected despite settlement
A petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking quashing of FIR, registered against the petitioner at Police Station Vasant Kunj North, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, on the ground that the matter has been settled and compromised between the parties. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., held that the present petition for quashing of FIR, based on compromise, cannot be allowed the Settlement Agreement does not reflect why the parties have settled the case, except the fact that the victim had agreed to settle the case upon being asked by the learned Trial Court Judge and that the accused is willing to pay Rs. 3.5 lakhs to the victim in exchange of his exoneration in the present case. Read more HERE
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT | Child victim had to suffer untold miseries; grants Compensation granted to minor rape victim after hospital asks demeaning questions, conducts two-finger test
The Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya, JJ., during the course of hearing, in the present appeal, noticed that the Civil Hospital, Palampur had issued medico legal certificate (‘MLC’), which was demeaning, self-incriminating and self-inculpatory to the child victim. Further, apart from this, the doctors issuing the MLC even conducted the ‘two-finger test’ on the child victim. The Court opined that what was worse was that the child victim had to suffer untold miseries, especially when confronted with the questions of the MLC, which were humiliating and self-incriminating. Further, those irresponsible medical professionals, who designed the proforma and who medically examined the child victim, could not be allowed to go scot-free, and the child victim essentially and legally needed to be compensated. Thus, the Court directed the respondents to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation to the child victim for the trauma, embarrassment, humiliation and harassment that was caused to her by the Doctors in the Civil Hospital Palampur. Read more HERE
DEFAMATION
DELHI HIGH COURT | Proceedings against Dr. Shashi Tharoor for making defamatory statements against Prime Minister Modi refused to be quashed
In a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preferred by Dr. Shashi Tharoor, to challenge the order dated 27-04-2019 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi wherein Dr. Tharoor had been summoned for commission of offence under Section 500 of the Penal Code, 1860, a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. did not find any ground to quash the proceedings and directed the parties to appear before the Trial Court on 10-09-2024. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Notice issued to BJP member Amit Malviya after he initiated criminal defamation against RSS Member
In a writ petition filed by a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) to quash the complaint filed by Amit Malviya (respondent 2), a BJP politician and President of I.T. Cell, Co-In charge of West Bengal Chapter, pending before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and to quash/set aside the order dated 31-07-2024 passed by the Patiala House Courts wherein a notice had been issued to the RSS member in terms of the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS, a Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J. issued notice to Amit Malviya and made the same returnable on 04-03-2024. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Directed removal of defamatory X posts/tweets against Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia; videos in public domain to be made private
The plaintiff seeks ad interim ex parte injunction thereby directing Defendants 14 and 15, Google LLC and X (Twitter), respectively, to take down the posts/videos of Defendants 1 to 13 from the platform of Defendants 14 and 15 and also ad interim ex parte injunction against Defendants 1 to 13 thereby restraining them and their agents, representatives, associates, heirs, relatives etc., to cease and desist from posting any derogatory and harmful material on social media platforms, including on the platforms of Defendants 14 and 15 pertaining to plaintiff, during the pendency of the present suit. Neena Bansal Krishna, J.*, considering the imminent threat of misuse of the deepfake videos in future, which were prima facie depicting plaintiff being beaten up, which might not be true, opined that the videos were liable to be restrained from being kept in the public domain till the suit was finally decided. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | [Arvind Kejriwal Defamation Case] ‘Retweeting’ a defamatory imputation amounts to ‘publication’ for purpose of S 499 IPC
A petition was filed by Arvind Kejriwal, challenging the defamation case filed against him by Vikas Sankrityan alias Vikas Pandey for retweeting a video, posted by Dhruv Rathee where allegations were made regarding Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT cell. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., upheld the summon orders, refused to quash the defamation case observing that retweeting defamatory content amounts to defamation as retweeting a content, which is allegedly defamatory, on the Twitter account and projecting it to be as if his own views, will prima facie attract the liability under Section 499 of IPC, for the purpose of issuance of summons. The Court held that “The rigours of Section 499 of IPC will be attracted prima facie in case a person will retweet/repost the alleged defamatory remarks or content, for the general public to see, appreciate and believe”. Read more HERE
DEFECTIVE INVESTIGATION
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT | ‘Sluggish Investigation’; Uttaranchal HC grants default bail to accused persons in Haldwani Violence Case
In the present case, various appeals were filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against order dated 11-05-2024, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, whereby the Sessions Judge, extended the period of investigation and detention of appellants beyond 90 days and the order dated 24-05-2024, passed by the Sessions Judge, whereby bail applications of appellants for release on default bail were rejected. Read more HERE
DOWRY DEATH
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Mechanical addition of charges u/s 302 IPC in dowry cases dilutes the severity of murder as an offense; Takes note of practice by Trial Courts
The Division Bench of Rahul Chaturvedi*, J. and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi, J. while dealing with similar appeals related to dowry deaths, addressed the issue of the application of Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 in dowry-related cases, as a result of the misuse of murder charges in cases primarily revolving around dowry harassment and deaths. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Action called for against Investigating Officer over dowry death investigation shortcomings; bail denied to accused
In a petition filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking bail in criminal proceeding for alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Penal Code, 1860, the single-Judge Bench of Rajendra Prakash Soni, J., denied to grant bail due to the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie evidence against the petitioner. However, the court noted investigatory inaccuracies and called for administrative action against the Investigating Officer concerned. Read more HERE
KIDNAPPING, ABDUCTION AND MURDER
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Whether a father can be booked for offence of kidnapping for taking away his own minor child from the custody of the mother?
While hearing the instant petition seeking to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner by Khadebazar police station, Belagavi, under Section 363, Penal Code, 1860 for allegedly taking away his 2-year-old minor son from the house of his estranged wife, thereby committing the offence of kidnapping; the Bench of Venkatesh Naik T., J.*, perusing the relevant provisions under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, pointed out that, a father is a natural guardian of a minor in the absence of any order otherwise passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court further stated that the father of a child will not come within the scope of S. 361 of IPC, even if he takes away the child from the custody of the mother. Read more HERE
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT | Bimal Gurung Gorkha, Jana Mukti Morcha Leader, reinstated as accused in Madan Tamang Murder Case
Two criminal revision petitions were filed by petitioners, one by Bharati Tamang, a widow of deceased Madan Tamang then-president of the All-India Gorkha League (AIGL) whose murder forms the basis of the case and other by CBI challenging the order dated 17-08-2017 passed by the Chief Judge City Sessions Court Calcutta discharging the prime accused, Bimal Gurung, a prominent figure of the Gorkha Jana Mukti Morcha (GJMM) in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 506 and 302 read with Section 34 and 120B of IPC. Subhendu Samanta, J., reinstated Bimal Gurung as an accused in the murder case of Madan Tamang, ordering further trial proceedings based on the grave suspicion against him arising from the evidence presented. Read more HERE
MAINTENANCE
GUWAHATI HIGH COURT | [Section 125 CrPC] Able bodied husband who can support himself is obligated to support his wife
In a review petition filed under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (’CrPC’) against an impugned judgement of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nalbari (‘the Trial Court’), Malasri Nandi, J., held that where the husband is able to finally sustain himself, he is obligated to provide financial support to his wife as well. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Husband is not absolved from providing maintenance even if wife is capable of earning’; Trial Court order upheld against husband having extra-marital affair
In a petition filed to challenge the order dated 19-09-2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II (‘ASJ’), Saket Courts wherein the order dated 21-12-2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Saket which fixed maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month to be paid by the petitioner (husband) to the respondent (wife) was upheld, a Single Judge Bench of Subramonium Prasad, J. found the orders passed by the courts to be well reasoned and did not find any reason to interfere with the same. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Well-qualified wife should not remain idle and dependent on maintenance from husband
In Criminal Revisions filed by both husband and wife regarding reduction of the maintenance amount and enhancement of the maintenance amount, respectively, a single-judge bench of Prem Narayan Singh, J., held that “well qualified spouses should not be left idle or to remain idle basing on their maintenance amount received from their husband” and reduced the maintenance amount was from ₹60,000 to ₹40,000 per month. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Woman living with man for considerably long period of time entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
In an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the order of maintenance due to absence of a legally recognized marriage, a single-judge bench comprising of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., upheld the maintenance order in favor of the respondent, emphasising on the principle of preventing vagrancy and ensuring social justice under Section 125 of CrPC. Read more HERE
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
GUWAHATI HIGH COURT | Confessional statement, not signed or proved by the Magistrate who recorded it, cannot be treated as true u/s 164 CrPC
The present jail appeal was preferred under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 01-10-2004 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Phek, Nagaland under Sections 302 and 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), whereby the petitioner-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Can plea bargaining extend to commission of a gender centric offence?
In a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), to quash the charge sheet filed for offences under Sections 173, 294(b), 323, 342, 353, 427 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act on the complaint given by a woman aged 53 years working as Junior Bailiff at District Court, Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. said that the term “offences against women” which is excluded from plea bargaining would mean only gender-centric or gender-neutral offences and not non-gender offences committed against women. Thus, only gender centric offences are excluded from the scope of plea bargaining. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Can an offence under S. 498A IPC committed outside India, be tried before Indian Courts?
In a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’), the petitioner sought to quash a complaint alleging offences under Section 498-A of the Penal Code (IPC) committed in Australia. A. Badharudeen, J., held that, for an offence committed outside India, the proviso to Section 188 of the CrPC requires prior sanction from the Central Government, and therefore prosecution against such person would stand vitiated. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Bar contained in S. 197, CrPC cannot be read into the provisions of a special legislation like SC/ST Atrocities Act
In a criminal writ petition before the Court filed by a Government Medical Officer, against the sanction order contained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), denying sanction for prosecution of the petitioner’s colleagues for offences punishable under Sections 506 and 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Atrocities Act”), the Division Bench of Mangesh S Patil* Shailesh P Brahme, JJ., partly allowed the petition and upheld the refusal to sanction prosecution under S. 197, CrPC. The Court held that no previous sanction as contemplated under Section 197 CrPC would be necessary for investigating and filing final report for offences under Section 509 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act. The Court also clarified that a bar contained in Section 197, CrPC cannot be read into the provisions of the Atrocities Act which does not contain any such condition precedent. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Attempt to murder case transferred from Pune Police to CID in the interests of proper investigation and complete justice
The instant appeal was preferred under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (“MCOCA”), challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune that allowed the Protest Petition filed by Respondent 2, rejecting the Report filed by the Investigating Officer (“IO”) under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 (“CrPC”) and directing the IO to conduct detailed investigation on the statements of the witnesses and submit a chargesheet against the appellant. The Division Bench of AS Gadkari* and Shyam C Chandak, JJ., transferring the investigation to the State Crime Investigation Department (“CID”), modified the order of the Trial Court, to the extent of filing a chargesheet, and upheld the same. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Can a wife claim that sexual act by her husband is without consent?
In an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to quash a FIR under Sections 377, 498-A, 294, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the consequential proceedings on the ground that the allegations made were false and have been levelled against the petitioner 1-husband and his family members (‘petitioners’) only to give a criminal angle to a matrimonial dispute, Prem Narayan Singh, J., contemplated whether the consent of wife residing along with her husband during the subsistence of marriage can claim that the sexual act was committed with her without consent, and held that consent of wife is immaterial in a sexual act with her husband during the subsistence of marriage. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Irregular order struck down, directions to Magistrate on probe into rape allegations against Ponnani police officials, cancelled
In a case involving an allegation of rape by a housewife against police officials at the Ponnani Police Station, the Division Bench, comprising of Nitin Jamdar* CJ., and S. Manu, J. ruled that the Single Judge’s order must be set aside due to procedural irregularities. The Court noted that the writ petition had been filed without adhering to the proper procedural requirements, specifically bypassing the necessary procedure. Furthermore, the directions issued to the Magistrate were deemed inappropriate because none of the proceedings before the Magistrate were under challenge in the writ petition. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Detailed directions issued for tackling bomb threat emails targeting Delhi Schools
A petition was filed by the petitioner seeking immediate and urgent directions to the respondents to formulate and implement interim measures, in a time-bound manner, till adequate SOP/laws/guidelines etc. are prepared to address situations of bomb threat emails targeting schools in Delhi. Sanjeev Narula, J., directed GNCTD and Delhi Police to finalize and implement the draft action plans and SOPs in a time-bound manner, conduct regular mock drills in schools under police supervision to ensure preparedness and assign specific nodal officers in each zone to oversee bomb threat responses. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Does the right to default bail accrues upon the expiry of the statutory period if an investigation extension application is pending?
In a criminal revision case filed under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) , to set aside the order of extension of investigation passed by the Principal Special Judge under Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) and to enlarge the accused on bail, Sunder Mohan, J. reiterated that if an extension application is pending, the right of the accused to obtain default bail, would not accrue to the accused. Further, noting that the Public Prosecutor had failed to explain why further detention was necessary for the purpose of the investigation, set aside the impugned order which had extended the statutory period for investigation. Therefore, as the extension order was overturned, the right to statutory bail was revived, and the accused persons were entitled to be released on bail. Read more HERE
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | Doctrine “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” doesn’t apply in India; Courts must separate reliable evidence from exaggerations
In a 24-year-old assault case, a Division Bench of Sanjay Dhar* and Rajnesh Oswal, JJ., held that the principle “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” does not apply to Indian Courts and courts must separate reliable evidence from exaggerations. Despite discrepancies regarding injuries to others, the Court held that the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused/respondent 1 grievously injured complainant prosecution witness. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | [Devotees Castration Case] Order of SJM directing CBI to produce documents requested by Ram Rahim, set aside
In a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking an order to set aside the order dated 16-02-2019 by the Special Judicial Magistrate (SJM), CBI Haryana, Panchkula whereby CBI was directed to place on record and supply certain witness statements and documents mentioned in applications dated 25-01-2019 and 31-01-2019 preferred by Gurmeet Ram Rahim (‘Ram Rahim’) (respondent 1) and respondent 2 respectively, a Single Judge Bench of Kuldeep Tiwari*, J. held that the impugned order failed to pass the test of legality and remanded the matter back to the Special Judicial Magistrate for deciding the matter afresh in line with legal principles laid down herein within four weeks. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | [Special Law v. General Law] Interplay between IPC and IT Act in punishing for overlapping offences, deciphered
A 3-Judge Bench of Mangesh S. Patil*, R. G. Avachat and Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ. examined whether an accused can be prosecuted against various sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) and the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), directedthat the matters be placed before an appropriate Bench for adjudication of the issues at hand. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Right to sleep is a basic human right and non-providing of the same may impair a person’s mental faculties, cognitive skills; ED directed to issue circular against recording statement at night
In a criminal writ petition, wherein the petitioner prayed for declaring the arrest to be illegal and to quash the order granting remand before the division bench of Revati Mohite Dere* and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ., the Court held that the petitioner was produced well within 24 hours of his arrest before the Special Court and hence, the arrest was legal. However, the Court also directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to issue a circular/directions as to the timings for recording of statements so that the practices of the ED do not violate the fundamental rights of the persons summoned. Read more HERE
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Courts will do well in not ordering concurrent running of sentences for serial offenders accused of heinous crimes
In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) read with Section 427(1) of CrPC, Jasjit Singh Bedi, J., opined that in the present case, petitioner sought the concurrent running of sentences as per Section 427(1) of CrPC. However, there was absolutely no justifiable reason for the present Court to exercise its discretionary power under Section 427(1) of CrPC as the offences in each case were completely different and did not arise out of the same transaction and were also heinous offences. If in every case, the Court ought to exercise its powers under Section 427(1) of CrPC, then there would be multiple convictions for varying periods of time by different Courts for different offences. Further, Courts would be obligated to order concurrent running of sentences which would defeat the very purpose of imposition of a sentence which must be not only deterrent in nature but also befitting the crime. Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | ‘Undertrial and convict cannot seek habeas corpus for release citing infringement of right to life and liberty’; Relief denied to maoist leader Sabyasachi Panda
In a writ petition by Maoist leader Sabyasachi Panda seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus, the Division Bench of Arindam Sinha and MS Sahoo, JJ. said that when a petitioner is in custody as an undertrial and a convict, it cannot be said that his fundamental right to life and liberty was infringed. Hence, no relief was granted to Sabyasachi Panda. Read more HERE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | ‘Issuance of Rule Nisi and posting bail applications after weeks without adverting to merits be curbed immediately’; Directions in Satender Kumar Antil to be followed
In a special criminal application whereby the issue of long practice of issuance of ‘Rule’ or ‘Rule Nisi’ in bail matters, was raised, the Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal, CJ. and Aniruddha P. Mayee, J. directed all the Courts in the State including the High Court to scrupulously follow the directions laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, while dealing with the bail applications under Sections 437, 438 or 439 of the CrPC. The Court also said that practice of issuance of ‘Rule’ and posting the bail applications after weeks for final hearing without adverting to the merits of the application on the date of its presentation, should be curbed immediately. Read more HERE
MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT | ‘Prosecution in rape cases cannot be withdrawn on basis of survivor’s forgiveness or understanding between parties’
In an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the First Information Report for offences under Section 376-D read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, along with the Sessions Case initiated against the accused persons, B. Bhattacharjee, J. dismissed the application for lack of merits and said that serious offences including rape could not be settled or withdrawn on the basis of forgiveness granted by the survivor or on the basis of any understanding arrived at between the parties. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Is it necessary to mention in FIR any one or more offences described under S. 2(b) of UP Gangsters Act? Issue referred to Larger Bench
A writ petition filed for quashing of an FIR registered against five accused under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 (‘the Act of 1986’), allegingthat incorrect details of the criminal cases have been furnished against the accused in the gang-chart attached to the police report and that the same has been passed by various authorities without application of mind and that the due procedure was not followed as established under the Act of 1986 and the Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 (‘Rules of 2021’) for the filing of the charge sheet. The division bench of Kshitij Shailendra and Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ. viewed that there is no requirement of mentioning any one or the other offences mentioned in subclause (b) of Section 2 at the time of bare registration of FIR and, therefore, mentioning Section 3 of the Act, 1860 only would suffice at that stage. However, citing judicial propriety, it referred important issues to the larger bench, while stating that interim protection granted to the petitioners under the order dated 08-02-2024 shall remain in operation. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Charge sheet not invalidated/vitiated, if documents relied on by prosecution not filed along with it
An application under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was filed on behalf of petitioner for bail in FIR under Sections 454, 380, 420, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.*, dismissed the application and opined that the charge sheet was filed against petitioner within the prescribed limit and cognizance was taken by the concerned Court, thus petitioner could not claim the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC merely because some investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC might be required. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Accused cannot be coerced to reveal/disclose password in regard to digital evidence while trial is ongoing
In a case wherein, a bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking bail in FIR dated 07-07-2022, registered under Sections 120-B, 170, 384, 420 and 503 of the Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 66-C, 66-D, 75 and 85 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, Saurabh Banerjee, J., allowed the bail application and held that applicant-accused was protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution against self-incrimination and therefore could not be coerced to reveal password or any other details in view of the protection provided to him under the Constitution. Read more HERE
PRISONS, PRISONERS AND PROBATION OF OFFENDERS
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT | Sending first time offenders of less serious offence to jail might attract them towards a life of crime instead of reforming; probation upheld
In a revision petition filed by the complainant challenging the judgment dated 02-05-2022, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, Manish Batra, J., stated that the object underlying the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Sections 360 and 361 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, was that the first offenders should not be sent to jail for the commission of less serious offences, on account of grave risk to their life, as they were likely to be exposed with the hardened and habitual criminal inmates of the jail. Thus, considering the agony and trauma which the accused persons underwent, the Court stated that no useful purpose would be served by sending them again into jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | Balancing victim’s safety and accused rights; Parole granted away from Rape survivor’s residence
In a writ petition seeking 15-day parole by the petitioner who is currently incarcerated in Central Jail, Udaipur for rape of his daughter, a division bench of Munnuri Laxman and Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, JJ., allowed the petition and granted the petitioner a 15-day parole under specified conditions. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Uniform policy required for granting furlough/parole as authorities adopt pick and choose policy’; Furlough leave granted to two prisoners who surrendered late
In the present case, petitioners were inmates who challenged the order dated 15-04-2024 passed by Respondent 2-Deputy Inspector of Police (Prison) and prayed for directions to be given to release them on furlough leave. The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi* and S.G. Chapalgaonkar, JJ., noted that earlier in case of a prisoner who had surrendered belatedly by 49 days, was granted furlough leave and observed that the authority was adopting pick and choose policy and thus, opined that the same criteria ought to have been adopted and certainly petitioners in the present case should not to have been discriminated against on the said ground. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 15-04-2024 and directed that petitioner be released on furlough leave. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Police personnel strangulating pregnant wife not exceptionally brutal/violent’; Husband held eligible for remission
In the present case, petitioner, who was convicted in a case by the Court of 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, was seeking release based on the categorization permitted under Annexure-I Category 2(b) of the Government Resolution dated 15-03-2010, issued under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The State Government vide its order dated 14-09-2018, refused to extend the benefit of categorization to petitioner as petitioner was Police personnel and had murdered his pregnant wife. The Division Bench of Nitin W. Sambre* and Vrushali V. Joshi, JJ., opined that only because petitioner was an employee of Police department, and murdered his pregnant wife would not disentitle him to get the benefit of remission which was provided under resolution dated 15-03-2010. The Court held that the State’s refusal to admit petitioner for remission could not be sustained and thus, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 14-09-2018. The Court categorized petitioner under category 2(b) of Annexure-I appended to the resolution and held that petitioner committed crime with premeditation, therefore, petitioner was liable to undergo 22 years’ imprisonment including remission. Read more HERE
QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS AND FIR
TELANGANA HIGH COURT | FIR against Senior Advocate allegedly taking bribe to influence Judges refused to be quashed due to pending investigation
The present criminal petition was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking to quash FIR registered by P.S. Central Crime Station against petitioner allegedly taking bribe to influence judges. K. Lakshman, J., directed that as the investigation was pending, FIR could not be quashed but opined that petitioner was protected from arrest till filing of the final report. Read more HERE
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT | [Baba Tarsem Singh Murder Case] Former IAS Officer Harbans Singh Chugh’s plea to quash FIR, dismissed
By the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner challenged FIR, lodged on 28-3-2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station, Nanakmatta, Udham Singh Nagar. Rakesh Thapliyal, J., noted that the investigation was still on going and for the same, the custodial interrogation was necessary, particularly when the open firing on Baba Tarsem Singh was caused by the two shooters who came from the State of Punjab and stayed in Bhai Mardana Yatri Niwas, Nanakmatta (‘Sarai’) for 10 days which was headed by petitioner, therefore, at this stage, the Court opined that any interference with the investigation was unwarranted. The Court thus dismissed the petition being devoid of any merit. Read more HERE
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT | FIR against two Doctors involved in illegal kidney transplantation racket, refused to be quashed
In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by petitioners under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 419, 471, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a single-judge bench comprising of Sudesh Bansal, J., held that the petitioners’ involvement in the illegal kidney transplantation racket could not be dismissed at this stage, given the substantial evidence against the petitioners, including telephonic contacts and suspicious financial transactions and ongoing investigation. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | “Adding specific dress in Cartoon prima facie indicates attempt to promote enmity”; FIR against Folk Singer refused to be quashed
In an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash the FIR registered under Section 153-A of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the applicant, a folk singer, who uploaded a cartoon on her social media accounts which allegedly promoted enmity between different groups, a single-judge bench comprising of G.S. Ahluwalia, J., held that the applicant’s inclusion of specific dress details not related to the actual incident suggests an intent to attribute the incident to a particular group, potentially inciting enmity and disrupting harmony. The Court found that the applicant’s actions prima facie constituted promoting enmity between different groups, a punishable offence under Section 153-A IPC. The Court dismissed the application for quashment of FIR and stated that the applicant’s defense regarding intent should be examined during the trial. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | FIR against Delhi Prisons employee following News Nation’s ‘Kala Pani’ Broadcast allegations, quashed
A petition was filed seeking quashing of FIR dated 11-07-2014 registered at PS ACB, New Delhi under Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the present petitioner relating to case is that News Nation, a TV news channel operation titled ‘Kala Pani’ allegedly showing some of the employees of Delhi Prisons interacting with reporters. Some of the employees allegedly accept bribe money for extending favours inmates contrary to the Delhi Prisons Rules. Vikas Mahajan, J., quashed the FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom as the evidence did not support the allegations of corruption and misconduct, and noted that the petitioner had been exonerated by both the inquiry officer and the UPSC. Read more HERE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT | Proceedings against person charged for writing a woman’s mobile number on the walls of men’s toilet at Majestic Bus Stand refused to be quashed
While considering the instant petition challenging the criminal proceedings under Sections 501, 504, 507 and 509 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the petitioner for writing the complainant’s mobile number on the walls of a gents’ toilet at Majestic Bus Stand, the Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J.*, refused to quash the proceedings and sternly noted that the petitioner’s that it was only a writing on the wall and no offence can be made out, cannot be considered in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. The Court further pointed out that the ingredients of Sections 501, 504, 507 and 509 of the IPC are clearly met in the instant case and the petitioner cannot get away with making belittling comments against a woman in public. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Relationship between two adult individuals does not justify sexual assault on partner
The petitioner sought the quashing and setting aside of a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860. During pendency of the petition, a charge sheet was filed by the police officials, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge at Karad. The petitioner was given the liberty to amend the petition to challenge the proceedings which were now assailed. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ., opined that the relationship between petitioner and the complainant in respect of indulging in sexual activities was not consensual to justify quashing of the criminal complaint at the threshold. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | ‘Quashing of cases involving sexual violence based on monetary payments would imply that justice is for sale’; FIR refused to be quashed
In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the First Information Report registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 323, 509, 34, and 380 of Penal Code, 1860, a Single Judge Bench of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. held that this case did not merit the quashing of the FIR but necessitated a trial to determine whether the complainant had made a false case. Read more HERE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT | Rape case lodged by Honey Trap racket operator quashed
In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking the quashing of FIR registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860, a single-Judge Bench of Sanjay Dwivedi, J., quashed the FIR against the petitioner based on delay in lodging the FIR, combined with the complainant’s history of similar allegations and the petitioner’s credible defence. The Court held that the prosecution against the petitioner appeared to be malicious, instituted with ulterior motives, and constituted an abuse of the legal process. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | ‘Consent derived in fear of injury or misconception of fact is no consent’: Proceedings refused to be quashed against accused for rape
The petitioners filed the instant petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending against them before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, Raigad, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 342, 504, 506, 501, read with 346 of the Penal Code, 1860. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., found that petitioner 1 was obtaining sexual relations from the complainant by first promising her that he would marry her, and then by threatening her of multiple outcomes, including the circulation of an offensive footage of them involved in sexual activities. The Court found that the complainant continued to maintain physical relations with her, under fear of being defamed. Therefore, the Court held that such consent was no consent in the eye of the law and refused to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | FIR against Director of International Pharma Trader Co. for non-compliance with NDPS provisions refused to be quashed
The applicant sought the quashing of FIR registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 9(A), 25(A), 29, and 59 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The applicant was a director of a pharmaceutical import-export company, who was implicated for having exported controlled substances in violation of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order, 2013. It was contended by the applicant that he was not informed of the NDPS Order since the respective agencies had failed to publish the same on their websites. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., was faced with a question: whether the ignorance of a Notification published in the Gazette can be a defence to justify quashing of FIR, holding that no cognizable offence is prima facie made out from a plain reading of the FIR? The Court held that the allegations contained in the FIR against the applicant, if taken on their face value, did prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Mere presence at hotel as ‘customers’ while women dance in obscene manner, not sufficient to attract offence u/s 294 of IPC
Petitioners, who were accused in a case pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, at Mumbai, under Sections 294, 114, read with 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, and under Sections 3, 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), and 8(4) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016, had filed the present petition seeking quashing of the said case. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Shyam C. Chandak*, JJ., opined that no other specific overt act was attributed to petitioners to attract the offences punishable under Sections 294, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC against them. Therefore, mere presence of petitioners at the hotel as ‘customers’, when the two women were dancing allegedly in obscene manner, was not sufficient to attract the said offence. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | FIR against former DGP accused of forwarding offensive WhatsApp message against Chief Minister MK Stalin, quashed
In a criminal petition filed by the Former Director General of Police, State of Tamil Nadu under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records pertaining to FIR for the offences under Section 153, 153-A, 504, 505(1)(b), 505(1)(c), 505(2) of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and quash the same, Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. while quashing the FIR, directed the petitioner to forward the affidavit copy to the WhatsApp group and report compliance to the Investigating Office for record purpose. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | Criminal case against director Sreekumar Menon filed by film actress, quashed
In a petition filed by film and Ad director Sreekumar Menon to quash the proceedings in the criminal case filed by a Malayalam movie actress against him for offences of stalking, obscenity or intent to insult a woman’s modesty, S. Manu, J. held that no offence had been committed under Sections 354D, 294(b), and 509 of IPC, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | FIR against Madhuri Jain Grover, wife of Ashneer Grover, in economic offences case quashed after settlement
A petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR dated 10-05-2023 registered at Police Station — Economic Offences Wing, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 30-09-2024. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., held that the FIR could be quashed if it was found that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only burden the judiciary with a matter that the parties had willingly resolved among themselves. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | FIR refused to be quashed against two people who allegedly slapped a Member of Parliament belonging to Scheduled Caste
Petitioners approached this Court for quashing the FIR registered at Dadar police station on 17-07-2024 under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the SC & ST Act’) and under Sections 115(2), 3(5) and 356 of the Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Division Bench of Sarang V. Kotwal and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ., opined that there was no justification for slapping a member of parliament belonging to a scheduled caste, in public view and uttering derogatory words. The Court thus held that no case was made out for quashing the FIR. Read more HERE
BOMBAY HIGH COURT | Plea to quash case against Former Andhra Pradesh CM Nara Chandrababu Naidu for assaulting police personnel, rejected
By way of separate applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), applicants were seeking quashment of the crime, the charge-sheet and the criminal case registered with Dharmabad Police Station District Nanded on 20-7-2010 for offences punishable under Sections 353, 324, 332, 336, 337, 504, 506 read with Section 109 and Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Read more HERE
REMAND
MANIPUR HIGH COURT | Discharge order of accused involved in transnational drug trafficking syndicate, set aside; case remanded back for trial
In a Revision Petition filed under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 36-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) challenging the discharge order of accused involved in a transnational drug trafficking syndicate, a single-judge bench of A. Guneshwar Sharma, J., set aside the discharge order and remanded back the case to the Special court to frame charges under Sections 22(c), 29, 60(3) of the NDPS Act and Section 468 of the IPC against the accused and proceed with the trial. Read more HERE
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE
GUJARAT HIGH COURT | Asaram Bapu’s plea for suspension of life sentence in rape case, dismissed
In a criminal application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence awarded to Asaram Bapu by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 377, 354, 342, 357, 506(2) of the Penal Code, 1860, the Division Bench of Ilesh J. Vora and Vimal K. Vyas, JJ. dismissed the application for suspension of sentence. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Kuldeep Singh Senger’s suspension of sentence plea denied in Custodial Death Case of Unnao Rape victim’s father
In an application filed by Kuldeep Singh Senger under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking the suspension of the sentence awarded to him for various serious offenses, including rape, murder, and other charges under the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Arms Act, 1959 during the pendency of the present appeal, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. dismissed the application while stating that the court was not inclined to allow the same given the antecedents of Kuldeep Singh Senger and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | MK Nasar’s life sentence in 2010 Prof. TJ Joseph’s hand-chopping case, suspended
In a suspension of sentence application filed by MK Nasar, the master conspirator of the 2010 hand-chopping case, the Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V.* and P.V. Balakrishnan, JJ., held that it was a fit case for suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) since he already served 9 years, similarly placed accused have been released after serving or received shorter sentences, and the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future. Read more HERE.
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Former DGP Rajesh Das act degraded the morale of police force; Plea challenging his sentence in sexual harassment case, dismissed
In a criminal miscellaneous petition against the order of the Principal District & Sessions Court by which the conviction and sentence imposed on former Special Director General of Police (DGP) Rajesh Das by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offences under Section 354-A(2) of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 and Section 341 read with Section 109 of IPC were confirmed, M .Dhandapani, J. declined to grant suspension of sentence to Rajesh Das in the sexual harassment case, and also dismissed the petition exempting him to surrender before the Trial Court. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | [Coal Scam] Delhi HC stays Former Minister Dilip Ray’s conviction to enable him to contest elections of Odisha Legislative Assembly
The present application under Section 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was filed by appellant seeking suspension of order of his conviction dated 6-10-2020, on the ground that appellant had to contest upcoming elections of Odisha Legislative Assembly, 2024. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, opined that the conviction of appellant if not suspended would lead to an irreversible consequence if he was acquitted at a later stage. Thus, this Court allowed the present application and directed that the conviction of appellant dated 6-10-2020, shall stand stayed during the pendency of present appeal. Read more HERE
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT | Raj Babbar’s Conviction in 1996 Polling Officers Assault Case, stayed
In a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 389(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) filed by actor and politician Raj Babbar to set aside the order of the Sessions Court upholding his conviction under Sections 143, 332, 353 and 323 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and to suspend the effect, execution, and operation of the Conviction Order, the Bench of Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. stayed the conviction order during the pendency of his application citing the upcoming general elections as a reason for urgency. Read more HERE
TERRORISM
JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT | ‘Reformative theory takes back seat in heinous crimes like terrorism’; Kashmiri separatist Ashiq Hussain Faktoo’s Remission plea dismissed
In an Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) challenging Kashmiri separatist & militant Ashiq Hussain Factoo’s conviction and writ petitions challenging Jammu & Kashmir Jail and Prison Manuals’ Rules as being unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, a Division bench of Sanjay Dhar* and M.A. Chowdhary, JJ., upheld the validity of the J&K Jail Manual’s rules, and held that the exclusion of terrorist crimes from remission justified and is in line with constitutional provisions. The Court dismissed the petitioners’ appeal and affirmed that the terrorist acts committed by the appellant and petitioner fell within the rules barring remission. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | Bail denied to alleged NSCN-IM member in terror funding case
In a bail application by the appellant who was accused of being a member of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-Muviah) (‘NSCN-IM’), and of extorting money for terrorist activities, the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain, JJ. dismissed the application while stating that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be allowed to run from the clutches of law. Read more HERE
DELHI HIGH COURT | [2008 Delhi Serial Bomb Blasts] Plea of three members of “Indian Mujahideen” group against the order denying them bail, dismissed
The present appeal was filed on behalf of appellant under the provisions of Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency, 2008 (‘NIA Act’) seeking bail in FIR registered on 13-9-2008. Appellant was facing trial before the Court of Sessions for the offences punishable under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 302, 307, 323, 427, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’); Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (‘the Act’); Sections 16, 18, 19, 20, and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’); and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’). The Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait* and Shalinder Kaur, JJ., considered the nature and seriousness of allegations and opined that appellant did not deserve to be released on bail. Thus, dismissed the present appeal. Read more HERE
WITNESSES
KERALA HIGH COURT | Under what circumstances can a witness be recalled for reexamination under Section 311 of CrPC
In a plea filed by the accused challenging the order of the Trial Court allowing a petition under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) filed by the prosecution for recall and reexamination of witness, A. Badharudeen, J., while dismissing the petition held that Section 311 CrPC empowered the Court to recall and examine any witness so required to meet the ends of justice and the determinative factor should be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case. Read more HERE
ORISSA HIGH COURT | ‘Criminal justice not one-sided, balance b/w conflicting rights & duties must be drawn’; Recall of witness at stage of death reference permitted
In an interlocutory application filed under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to recall the informant for additional cross-examination, the division Bench, consisting of Justice S.K. Sahoo and R.K. Pattanaik, JJ., allowed the prayer and directed the Trial Court to summon the informant and to limit the cross-examination to the questions listed in the submitted questionnaire. Read more HERE
MADRAS HIGH COURT | Accused persons in Kodanadu heist and murder case allowed to examine former CM Edappadi Palaniswami and VK Sasikala as witnesses
In a criminal revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to set aside the partially dismissed portion of the common order passed by the Sessions Judge, P.Velmurugan, J., while setting aside the impugned order, except with respect to Natarjan, Manager, Kodanadu, who was permitted to be examined as a defense side witness, directed the Sessions Judge to provide the accused persons an opportunity to examine former Tamil Nadu CM Edappadi Palaniswami and VK Sasikala among others as witnesses. Read more HERE
KERALA HIGH COURT | ‘Frivolous application filed for delaying disposal’; Rejected Actor Sunil’s plea to recall two expert witnesses for cross examination in 2017 actor assault case
In a petition filed by actor Sunil N.S. for setting aside the impugned order wherein the Trial Court rejected his application seeking the recall of two witnesses who were examined in 2021, the Single Judge Bench of C. Jayachandran, J. delved into the provision of recalling witnesses under Sections 233 and 311 CrPC as well as the findings of the Trial Court and concurred with the Trial Court. Holding this, the Court rejected the petition stating that the application for recall is frivolous. Read more HERE
