Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In 2022, a complaint was filed against Chirag and Lakshya alleging that the players had misrepresented their date of birth to qualify for tournaments in the Under-13 and Under-15 categories and thereby gained wrongful selection and monetary rewards.
“An act done by a person pursuant to the judgment of the Court cannot form basis for prosecuting such person as the same does not come within the definition of “offence” as contained in IPC.”
“Process of law should not be allowed to be misused by a litigant to satisfy his personal grudges and oblique considerations to settle personal scores.”
“The law requires that for an allegation of malafide to be sustained, it must be pleaded with specificity and supported by material facts. In the absence of mens rea, or a demonstrable element of ill-intention, such a prayer cannot be entertained.”
“Misuse of the process of Court with an intent to tarnish the image of judiciary, threatening the integrity, and the efficiency of the judicial system cannot be allowed to be overlooked”.
While Justice Bela M. Trivedi took a stern note of the actions of the errant advocates, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma accepted the unconditional apology.
“Homebuyers and developers have not always been the best of friends. Instances are innumerable where the two have been at daggers drawn. This case presents one such instance”
“The possibility that some accused persons have not appeared due to their socio-economic vulnerabilities must be taken into account, and their absence should not be construed as a waiver of their right to seek justice.”
It was observed that the Complaint/FIR was replete with just one theme i.e. that the appellants are threatening the respondents that they will deny them share in the property. The Complaint/FIR was intended only to further their interest in the civil dispute.
Without mincing any words, the Court stated that the accused had miserably failed to get himself discharged when he had filed the application under S. 227 CrPC; still however, he filed another vexatious application seeking modification of charge under Section 216 of CrPC to derail the criminal proceedings.
The Court directed the Registrar General of this Court to send a copy of this Order to the Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur with a direction to impress upon the Judicial Magistrate concerned, not to pass orders in such reckless manner, without application of mind and unnecessarily enhance the burden upon this Court.
The Court stated that when the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was already filed by the petitioners, Respondent 2 had all the opportunity to defend in that pending complaint case, and without doing so, present complaint case was filed implicating the petitioners.
Petitioner stated that he had not filed any such or similar petition for quashing before the present Court or the Supreme Court. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed the present petition on 01-04-2024 and the present petition was filed on 17-05-2024.
When the legal process is abused by the members of the legal fraternity, who are supposed to be its protectors and preservers, the Court must take an extremely stern view of the matter.
Delhi High Court issued a mandatory reminder, rather than a gentle reminder that it is essential to emphasise that in cases involving offences of serious nature, particularly those falling under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, no form of mediation is permissible.
‘It is unfortunate to notice that a trend has been set to file applications under Article 226 of the Constitution at the drop of hat. Numerous cases has been filled with imaginary and very trivial causes of action. The court is of the opinion that such trend should be nipped in the bud and filling of writ petition of this nature has to be discouraged.’
The Karnataka High Court strictly admonished the petitioner for abusing every jurisdiction of law but refused to impose exemplary costs as the same would only increase the agony of the petitioner, whose marriage was annulled albeit with consent.
Constitutional Court of South Africa | A bench comprising of Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt*, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, JJ., Mlambo and
The Magistrates are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., addressed the instant petition regarding landlord-tenant dispute,