Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court was of the view that the petition and the accompanying application seeking an extension of time were filed and registered in the registry of this Court when CrPC, 1973 was in force, hence, the matter would fall under the scope of Section 531(2)(a) and this petition should be adjudicated through the provisions of CrPC, 1973.
The Delhi High Court stated that a prima facie case of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was made against K. Kavitha based on the material placed on record.
“There is clear distinction between rape and a consensual sex. The Court in such cases carefully examined whether accused actually wanted to marry victim or had a malafide motive and had made a false promise to this effect to satisfy his lust, as latter false ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between breach of promise or not fulfilling the promise.”
The Court reiterated that “investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with. But if the police does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the precocious plea that investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police.”
The Delhi High Court stated that the period of sentence served by a convict is only one of the several factors that are to be taken into consideration while adjudicating an application seeking suspension of sentence.
“For the reason that the parties are Hindus, one cannot assume that the order of maintenance is in recognition of the right under HAMA, for, Section 125 CrPC is secular and applicable to all.”
“If any part of the offence or even one instance of the overt act is committed in India, the sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not required”
The Court held that no previous sanction as contemplated under S. 197 CrPC would be necessary for investigating and filing final report for offences under S. 509 IPC and S. 3 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act, except for the offences punishable under S. 506 IPC.
The Delhi High Court said that the impact of terrorist activities on society is profound and far-reaching, as these crimes can sow fear and insecurity among communities, as well as disrupt social harmony.
The Court stated that when considering the material produced, it appears improbable that the accused persons’ visit to the police station was solely to fabricate evidence.
The Gauhati High Court noted that after completion of the investigation, the petitioner was not examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to enable him to personally explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, nor was his statement recorded.
The Court was of the view that both, the applicant in viewing the requirement of filing the appeal within six months as per S. 378(5) CrPC; and the respondents contending that the appeal should have been filed within sixty days as per S. 378(5), were equally incorrect.
‘While the victim/complainant has a right to be heard in the revision proceedings, such right does not upscale itself to a right to be impleaded in the said criminal revision’
The Delhi High Court says that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be permitted to be free by merely contending that the accounts, though in his name, were being managed by the co-accused.
“It is clear that Section-125 CrPC is social justice legislation which orders for the maintenance of wives, children and parents and the legislature has provided in Sections-125(5) CrPC., 126 CrPC as well as Section-127 CrPC, certain conditions on fulfilling of which, order passed u/s 125 CrPC can be recalled or modified”
“Petitioner appears to have taken a wrong end of law, aggrieved against adverse orders passed by the Judicial Officers of the District Courts as well as this Court and cannot be permitted to cross the red line, thereby making personal attack on the Judges which undermines the integrity of the Institution.”
“Request for the addition of the charge under section 370 IPC, as it stood prior to 2013, cannot be made at the instance of the prosecution. An addition of charge has to be done by the Court based upon its own satisfaction and not at the behest of any of the parties to the trial”
The Delhi High Court says that efforts must be taken to teach children about critical thinking skills to assess the credibility of online contacts and safeguard their personal information.
During the analysis on National Cyber Reporting Portal, ten complaints are found, in which innocent people are cheated by the same accused persons through the same modus operandi.