Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The University of Mumbai and Siddharth College of Law are at liberty to refuse permission to petitioner from appearing in the examination for failure to satisfy the minimum attendance criteria or any other eligibility criteria.
“The legislative intent through Section 509 is to deter an action capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman. The manner in which the offender shocks such sense of a woman is not restricted to oral abuse or gesture alone, but also include statements, speeches, exclamations, notes, all of which could be in a text form relayed whether physically or electronically.”
The Court was confounded, and its conscience shaken by hearing the evasive and false replies of the Police Head Constable; his demeanour clearly indicated his interest in protecting the accused than the victim of the sexual assault.
The Judicial Officer’s feeble excuses made in favour of non-compliance with the Court order could not be accepted; Judicial Officer is not performing duties seriously.
“The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given”- Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608
The instant FIR was nothing, but a shot fired by the husband from his wife’s shoulders to espouse his own interest in the father’s property.
The complainant was pitted against the might of petitioners, i.e., husband, father-in-law, and three sisters-in-law, who were abusing and ill-treating her on petty issues and their sole aim was to extort money from her and her parents.
The Court noted that Section 90 of IPC does not define the term “consent”, but the law does not see “consent derived from a fear of injury and misconception of fact” as consent.
No other specific overt act is attributed to petitioners to attract the offences punishable under Sections 294, 114 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860 against them.
Participants in a public auction must maintain the character they assumed throughout the ensuing litigation, unless legally permitted by the Court. Changing character to exploit the situation for personal gain, especially at the expense of legitimate beneficiaries, is impermissible.