Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court unequivocally dismissed the antiquated notion of ‘pardanashin,’ affirming that a woman’s dignity transcends cultural stereotypes like the veil. Upholding fundamental rights, the court emphasized that dignity is intrinsic to every individual, irrespective of religious practices.
“The petitioner is an organisation alleging circular financial transactions, violations of statutes, and private wealth creation from public funds. Regulatory bodies, including the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, RBI, SEBI, and NHB, are implored to take swift action in response to the serious allegations.”
“Magistrate is not bound to direct investigation by police even if all allegations made in complaint disclose ingredients of cognizable offence. Each case must be viewed depending upon facts and circumstances involved therein.”
“First progress report of the investigation has been called for in seven years. Moreover, the administrative instruction has not been followed inasmuch as more than thrice transfer of investigation of the case was not permissible.”
Calcutta High Court noted that upon its intervention, the investigating agency had taken appropriate steps in the investigation, including the arrest of some accused and the issuance of warrants against the absconding ones.
As on date, there are no rules prescribed by the State Government which provide a particular method of communicating the complainants/informants as per Section 173(2)(ii) CrPC to ensure uniformity, transparency and effective implementation of the provision, in its letter and spirit.
“It is high time that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country.”
The Sabhapati (Chairperson) of the Panchayat Sthayee Samity is in custody due to a false criminal case and 6 other members are named in an FIR and are currently evading arrest.
Supreme Court opined that the Jharkhand High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach and set aside the impugned order. Thus, granted bail to the husband.
Gurgaon Court: In a complaint filed under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (‘CrPC’) to take cognizance of
The petitioners were duty bound to supply packaged drinking water of IRCTC’s brand called Rail Neer but instead have been supplying other packaged drinking water, a brand cheaper than Rail Neer, but claiming reimbursement at the rate of Rail Neer causing loss to the Government Exchequer.
“Offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent to analyse the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation.”
Supreme Court also reiterated that the grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under Section 167 of the CrPC.
The Court made strict observations regarding conduct of the police officers of Bilasipara Police Station and directed the enquiry officers to expediate the investigations.
Allahabad High Court noted that Special Investigation Team has been vigorously and vigilantly conducting the investigation into the FIR and it has also been provided all the requisite paraphernalia needed for appropriate investigation of the crime.
The Court said that offences under UAPA are serious ones relating to the security of the nation and FIR cannot be quashed on mere technicalities without going to the complete merit of the case.
Delhi High Court observed that while grave allegations have been made qua the applicant with regard to connivance/conspiring with the promoters and other co-accused, no allegation with regard to his receiving benefits has been made.
Mazid Bayan is also a part of investigation, and it can be relied on by Investigating Officer while filing a final report/ charge sheet and only caveat is that it may not be a tutored statement or recorded only for the purpose of predetermined object to continue investigation in a particular way and it may not be on whimsical approach of Investigating Officer.
The Supreme Court made clear that further investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment and hence, the principle of double jeopardy would not apply.
Strange state of affairs; Neither investigating authority prepared rough map nor Trial Court took pain in recording correct directions for want of evidence