Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court noted that since the subject matter pertained to religious property and religious sentiments were involved, therefore requested the Single Judge to resolve the issue through mediation or settlement.
Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376 (rape), 363 (kidnapping), and 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative assault). The decision was based on an amicable settlement between the parties, with no costs imposed on either side. This case underscores the court’s recognition of mutually agreed resolutions in certain criminal proceedings.
The Court opined that as parties have amicably settled their disputes, no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with proceedings of the present FIR as it will create further acrimony between the parties.
Dhruv Rathee uploaded a video on his YouTube channel claiming that the consumption of packaged fruit juices leads to type II diabetes and that drinking packaged fruit juices leads to hair loss and is harmful if consumed.
“In view of the fact that parties have mutually settled their disputes, in order to put a quietus to the litigation pending between them, this Court sees no reason to continue the proceedings as no useful purpose will be served in doing so.”
Gujarat High Court while deciding the bail application strikes the balance between personal liberty of accused and seriousness of offences committed.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ., while noting the mitigating factors and circumstances in which
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.S. Shinde and Abhay Ahuja, JJ., reiterated the observation of Supreme Court in Gian Singh
Jharkhand High Court: Amitav K. Gupta, J. acquitted the petitioners of the charges on an amicable settlement between the parties. The relevant
Uttaranchal High Court: Manoj K. Tiwari, J. allowed a writ petition to quash criminal proceedings after parties compromise over a non-compoundable offence.
Gauhati High Court: Rumi Kumari Phukan, J., allowed and further disposed of the petition in view of the matter being settled outside
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Bench of Arvind Singh Sangwan, J., quashed the FIR on the basis of the compromise entered
Gujarat High Court: The Bench of Dr A.P. Thaker, J. while enlarging the appellant on bail disposed of a petition since the
Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Narayan Singh Dhanik J. disposed a compounding application along with a criminal writ petition and quashed
Bombay High Court: A Division Judge Bench comprising of Ranjit More and Bharati H. Dangre, JJ., quashed the criminal proceedings for the
Uttaranchal High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of V.K. Bisht, J. allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 CrPC
Uttaranchal High Court: The FIR registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC was quashed
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., allowed a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner
Uttaranchal High Court: A criminal writ petition filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 420,120-B
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that proceedings under Sections 498-A, 406 read with 34