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.
The Delhi High Court upheld the judgment passed by the Special Judge granting bail to a Spanish National as he was not given the opportunity of a translator or an interpreter and his refusal to get a search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was vitiated on account of his part understanding or misunderstanding of the questions put to him.
Madras High Court: The full bench of P.N. Prakash, Teekaa Raman and A.D Jagadish Chandira, JJ. held that the jurisdiction
Uttaranchal High Court: While allowing the revision petitions, the single judge bench of Ravindra Maithani, J. has held that Sessions
Madras High Court: In 32 cases regarding domestic violence filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the full bench
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J., expressed that, there may be stray incidents where the advocates have resorted
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari, JJ has given split verdict on the issue as to whether the
Supreme Court: In a case where the Magistrate had passed an order under Section 156(3) CrPC even in absence of an affidavit
Karnataka High Court: Rajendra Badamikar, J., reversed an order of the Magistrate which had directed the petitioner accused to deposit 20% of the
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., granted bail to a person accused of kidnapping a minor, which eventually in view of the
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., held that an aggrieved person cannot choose to file a petition under Section 12 of
Saket Courts, New Delhi: Anuj Agrawal, Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed an appeal filed by the husband against the order of the trial court
Delhi High Court: While stating the well-settled law that even when an appellate Court affirms the order of the Court below, it