Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court also reiterated that FIR is not an encyclopedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations, but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not.
In September 2024, the Supreme Court and various High Courts engaged in significant discussions on criminal law, focusing on critical issues such as Kolkata Rape and Murder Case; Delhi excise liquor policy scam; Cash-for-job scam. Key rulings emphasized the balance between individual rights and public interest. Overall, these discussions reflect a dynamic legal landscape committed to upholding justice amid evolving challenges.
Supreme Court directed that the accused be released on bail, on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. However, if the Trial Court or the State finds that the accused who has been granted bail is delaying the trial, they can approach this Court by way of an application to recall this order.
“When a party is relegated to the High Court to pursue its remedies, it would not be proper, in the normal course, to bind the said High Court with directions in relation to the proceedings to be impugned before such Court.”
The Court found that insofar as Section 406, IPC was concerned, no cognizable offence was visible on the face of the record. Furthermore, charges under S. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act were not made out either, against the appellants
,
“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.”
by Aditya Mukherjee* and Jayati Sinha**
Madras High Court took note of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein he regretted for his conduct, and he has recorded his regards to M.K.Stalin in unequivocal terms. Further, he said he will not subscribe to or endorse the alleged message in any way.
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 opined that since the petition was filed after 01-07-2024, it ought to have been filed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court stated that “if an FIR is registered prior to 01-07-2023 under the CrPC, it would amount to a pending enquiry/investigation within the meaning of Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS.”
The Delhi High Court opined that true justice, and the ends of justice would not be served by quashing the FIR without a trial, but by conducting a trial to fairly ascertain the real culprit, whether it be the accused or the complainant.
“The nature of abusive language is not specific. Applicant 1 was naturally at the house, and there was no evidence of intent. Therefore, ingredients of Section 503 IPC as punishable under Section 506 IPC are not made out.”
As per petitioners, the Chief Minister is responsible for tweeting fake circular of closure of hostels and messes in the Osmania University due to acute shortage of water and electricity.
The Court opined that the allegation that money is obtained to bribe the judges of this Court casts a serious doubt on the independence of judiciary and implies that justice is up for sale and such serious allegations need to be investigated.
“Though the charge sheet is filed after due investigation without prior permission of the Court and that the Magistrate has accepted the charge sheet and taken the cognizance, it does not mean that permission is granted by the Magistrate to investigate such non-cognizable offence.”
FIR is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported and mere information is sufficient for investigation.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim is currently serving a jail sentence of 20 years, due to his conviction for the rape of two women.