Settlement demand extortion or negotiation? Bombay HC quashes FIR over demand of ₹25 lakh each by flat purchasers
The Court held that an exorbitant settlement demand, without an intentional threat or fear of injury, does not attract Section 385 IPC.
The Court held that an exorbitant settlement demand, without an intentional threat or fear of injury, does not attract Section 385 IPC.
The Court emphasised unless a clear case of mala fides, demonstrable bias, lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process is made out before a competent court, the person under investigation cannot insist that the investigation be conducted by an officer of his choice.
The Court held that a registered sale deed supported by receipt of consideration and transfer of title cannot be contradicted by an unregistered agreement, and in the absence of dishonest intention from inception, no offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC is made out.
The Court held that a PIL seeking disclosure of the scientific archaeological survey of the Somnath Temple site was not maintainable where it was founded on unverified media reports, contained incorrect factual assertions, and failed to disclose the petitioner’s bona fides and credentials.
“Neither the FIR nor the impugned order discloses availability of any tangible material to substantiate the allegation that the appellant had conspired in the preparation of the alleged forged Will, or that the registered sale deed dated 18 December 1998 was executed by him with knowledge that the signatures on the Will were forged.”
“The jurisprudential basis for the State being the prosecuting agency in criminal offences is to prevent a criminal prosecution from descending into an exercise in vengeance, where the victim goes baying-for-the-blood of the offender; and to maintain objectivity, neutrality, fairness and a sense of proportion in prosecution of an offender.”
“Neither the statement of the watchman nor any material collected by the prosecution on record indicated that the applicant hoisted or displayed the Indian National Flag, or was involved in its display, on 26 January 2017.”
“Article 32 of the Indian Constitution is deemed to be “heart and soul” of the Constitution as it empowers any citizen to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.”
“Institutions of higher learning must remain spaces of safety, dignity, and intellectual freedom, and any trend of lawlessness, vigilantism, or disorder in and around the campus environment not only jeopardises students’ welfare but also undermines the institutional ethos.”
The Petitioners being Security Guards, had the bounden duty to ensure that no unauthorised person enters the office premises… act of restraining the Complainant for entering the Office for which she had no right, cannot be termed as an act of wrongful restraint.”
“When these allegations are considered apposite Section 498A IPC, they do not constitute “cruelty” as defined in the explanation appended to the provision.”
Presence of aggressive stray dogs on streets are causing grave risk to the lives of children, elderly people and vulnerable sections of society and also unabling them to access streets and parks because of the fear of being attacked and bitten by the rabies infected stray dogs.
“In a proceeding under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial or get into nitty-gritties of the evidence.”
“The filing of this kind of litigation should not be encouraged by this court and the same should be deprecated.”
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.