“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’.”
The lawyers are bound by their commitment to the duties cast on them by Part VI (Rules Governing Advocates), Chapter II (Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette) of Bar Council of India Rules which define their duties towards the Court, Client, Opponent and Colleagues.
Delhi High Court denied bail to a married person as he wanted to take advantage of the complainant by getting the complainant’s Date of Birth on the Aadhar Card changed so that when the applicant established physical relationship with the complainant, she would not have been a minor.
Delhi High Court: In a case where revision petition was filed against the order passed by the Trial Court by
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant appeal for restoration assailing the order passed by the Trial Court wherein the
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and AS Bopanna* and Hima Kohli, JJ has held that when the complainant/payee
Andhra Pradesh High Court: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy J. partly allowed the petition by quashing FIR for the offence punishable under Section 306
Supreme Court: In a case where it was alleged that more than one consumer cannot institute a complaint unless they come within
Madras High Court: G. Jayachandran, J., dismissed an appeal directed against the judgment of the first Appellate Court whereby it had reversed the
Madras High Court: The Bench of M.V. Muralidharan, J. upheld the order of respondent’s acquittal for an offence punishable under Section 138 of
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. allowed a petition for quashing of an FIR registered under Section