Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Public transport, which is meant to ensure mobility and independence, instead became a site of fear and vulnerability for the victim, and any undue leniency to an accused caught at the spot, may embolden any future for perpetrators.
Atul Subhash’ mother approached the Supreme Court seeking custody of her four-year-old grandson filing a habeas corpus petition.
“It is in the wisdom of the Investigating officer to file charge-sheet against those accused against whom there is strong evidence. Unnecessary harassment and false implication should be avoided.”
The husband’s contention that the present case is not a case where the wife is hospitalised due to cruelty or harassment committed upon her, is not only unmerited but also cross the threshold of having a mentality that in a serious Section 498-A IPC cases, the woman should have injuries and medical treatment record of a hospital.
by Tamarra Sequeira*, Amruthavarshini**, Aditya Sethi*** and Nandita Mathihalli****
The applicant contended that their gender identity and medical condition made them vulnerable to harassment and ridicule in society and in jail.
The Court stated that examination of contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances if necessary to ascertain whether such person has committed the offence of abetment to suicide or not.
“The High Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person would have ever arrived at.”
The Court was considering a case where a wife had set herself ablaze after having telephonic conversation with her husband who refused to come back and live with her and asked her to go from where she had come.
The Delhi High Court observed that merely because there was no express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, it does not mean that in-camera proceedings cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Court held that in appropriate cases, the Court may under Section 151 of the Code pass any order for carrying out the proceedings in camera if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.
All that the respondent wished for was a better roof over the head of his family. It was for this objective that the collaboration agreement was devised, but the appellant subjected the respondent to undue harassment on account of his illegal designs which led to the registration of the FIR, and the respondent had to run from pillar to post due to the direct acts of the appellant. Such circumstances do warrant awarding of damages on account of mental agony and harassment.
When a law-abiding citizen is adopting legal procedure and has gone to the Police Station to lodge a report, but his report has not been taken, then, such a person/s deserves to be protected. When prima facie the offences are not attracting the provisions under the Atrocities Act, there was no question of the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act
The Telangana High Court upheld the conviction of a husband under Section 498A of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) despite there being contradictions in the dying declarations as there were consistent statements about abuse and cruelty committed on the wife in all the dying declarations.
Madras High Court: In a suicide case by a 17-year-old school boy, filed against the headmaster S.M. Subramaniam, J. has held that
Bombay High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing the FIR for
Supreme Court: In an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, confirming the Family Court’s order
Andhra Pradesh High Court: Subba Reddy Satti J. granted anticipatory bail to the Chief Executing Officer (applicant-accused) as on perusal
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ. took strong exception to the functioning of
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench comprising A. Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas, JJ., held that cruelty has to be assessed from
Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. while noting that there were no legitimate grounds to deny the employee of gratuity and other