Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
“The petitioner’s suggestion that it should be made mandatory for the Criminal Court to issue a notice to the complainant/victim at every stage of the pre-trial and trial in criminal proceedings, if accepted would act as ‘a treatment worse than the disease’.”
“It is also the case of complainant that the accused persons including the petitioner had been defaming the complaint regularly through social media and the social media posts of the alleged incidents are even available on internet till date.”
“The concerned public servant should have prepared a complaint under Section 195 CrPC and the same should have been filed before the Magistrate or the same could have been forwarded along with the chargesheet to the concerned Court.”
Allahabad High Court reiterated that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court should not get in the merits of the case, and at such stage, the Court’s power is limited.
The Court observed that the suspect took two different stands distinct from each other, when he initially denied any conversation with the deceased after evening on the day he went missing, and then he disclosed the event of deceased slipping into the canal.
by B. Shravanth Shanker† and Monalisa Kosaria††
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.
Kerala High Court: In a case filed concerning recurring violence against Doctors and Healthcare Professionals, a Division Bench of Devan
Orissa High Court: In a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’) challenging the
Jharkhand High Court: The division bench of Ravi Ranjan, C.J., and Sujit Narayan Prasad, J., took suo motu cognizance of
“For vitiating the proceedings, something more than a mere lack of authority has to be established.”
Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Srinagar: Sanjeev Kumar, J., while addressing a matter in respect to Section 138 NI Act, stated that
Calcutta High Court: Madhumati Mitra, J., allowed a criminal revision application filed against the order of the Magistrate whereby he had rejected the
Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while allowing a writ petition, quashed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
Patna High Court: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. dismissed the petition filed against the order passed in Sessions Trial by which the opposite parties
Delhi High Court: Anu Malhotra, J. dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby the petitioner was summoned on
Delhi High Court: R.K. Gauba, J., referring to the relevant authority on the subject, allowed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC