Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect”.
“When prima facie evidence is available, the Magistrate, in our considered opinion, erred grievously in rejecting the application for maternity leave on assumptions and surmises. The action of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, to say the least is inhuman.”
Supreme Court noted that nothing is stated by the detaining authority as to why the conditions are not sufficient to prevent the detenu from engaging in further activities of smuggling; which was the specific ground on which the conditions were imposed while granting bail.
“Residence order is an urgent relief to protect a woman from her taking shelter on road. Therefore, passing of an interim order of the nature as defined under Section 19 of the Act is well within the jurisdiction of a Magistrate.”
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.
“Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the requirement of Section 202 CrPC., even though the applicants were residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court.”
The High Court answered the question in negative pointing out that Section 125, CrPC envisages that wives, parents and minor children can claim for maintenance.
“The compliance of provision under Section 202 of the CrPC, 1973, is compulsory and unavoidable for a Magistrate before issuance of summons in case of alleged offender who resides outside his territorial jurisdiction.”
Sexual violence against a woman should invite no tolerance, however, manipulating the system by the parties to a case under Section 376 IPC would equally need to be dealt with a stern hand and serious efforts should be made to address and remedy failings within the criminal justice system and through our society.
“When a case is committed by the Court of Magistrate to the Court of Session, the Magistrate becomes functus officio and any evidence recorded therein cannot be held to be admissible for the purposes of a de novo trial before the committal Court.”
“The High Court should have intervened and discharged the appellants. But this Court will intervene, being the sentinel on the qui vive.”
“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.”
Allahabad High Court noted that the Supreme Court has issued several directions to deal with the pendency of dishonor of cheque cases and for their expeditious disposal
Delhi High Court noted that the Duty Magistrate has the power to decide the application under Section 437 CrPC
“Permitting registration of a FIR cannot be a frolicsome act on the part of the Magistrate” – The Court noted that callous attitude of Magistrates has given tremendous rise to huge litigations.
In a clinical dissection of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Karnataka High Court stated that the victims’ grievances such as maintenance or shelter etc., must be addressed with immediacy, which is why the legislation has mandated a specific time frame.
The Manipur High Court held that where a person is taken into custody by an order of Magistrate, then such order cannot be challenged by Writ of Habeas Corpus as the detention cannot be termed as illegal.
Allahabad High Court remitted back the matter to the Magistrate and directed him to decide afresh the issue for taking cognizance and summoning the applicants and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
While quoting “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not fall into a pit?”, the Madras High Court said that the first blind person in this case is the Sessions Judge, who was guiding the Magistrate, who was also blind, due to ignorance of the legal position and ultimately, both fell in a pit, leading to illegal and non est orders passed by the Magistrate.