“Departmental proceedings pending criminal trial would not warrant an automatic stay unless, a complicated question of law is involved. Also, acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto would not be tantamount to closure or culmination of proceedings in favour of a delinquent employee”
“Mehul Choksi left the country long ago and he did not cooperate with any prosecution, though various complaints are filed against Gitanjali Gems as well as in his individual capacity. He has no respect towards the process of law”.
The High Court also issued directions for effective implementation of POCSO Act and amendments introduced in the CrPC in 2018 vis-à-vis notifying the informants or victims about filing of regular and anticipatory bail applications and other connected issues.
The Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the district wherein the school was situated, does not come under the ambit of Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981.
Punjab and Haryana High Court supported Sukhbir Singh Badal's claim of case being bereft of substance after joint reference to all the sections in the FIR.
It is very unfortunate that now a days, in maximum cases the women are using false rape FIRs as a weapon just to grab money from State, which should be stopped.
The Delhi High Court holds that there is no requirement in law to implead the victim to any criminal proceedings, whether instituted by the State or by the accused. The Court further directed the Registry to ensure that anonymity of the victims is strictly maintained.
The onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the sample of the contraband seized during investigation proceedings is the same which was forwarded to CFSL for examination and that there is no tampering of the same.
The Supreme Court observed that if allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences, it cannot lead to an order for registration of an FIR and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged.
Woman files petition for compromising an offence under section 376 of IPC, stating that she made the complaint in anger instead of actually being aggrieved.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petition wherein the Court was faced with the issue
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., quashed the criminal proceeding registered under Sections 420, 406, 34, 120-B of the Penal Code
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In the case relating to the compundable offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 and
Madras High Court: G. Chandrasekharan, J. declined to quash prosecution against actor SJ Suryah as the order of the Income Tax Appellate
Supreme Court: In an interesting case where the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and M.M. Sundresh, JJ., was to answer whether
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S Dixit J. quashes the criminal proceedings as the SC-ST act is not retrospective in nature. The petitioners
Delhi High Court: While expressing the object of PMLA Act Chandra Dhari Singh, J., expressed that, offence of money laundering is threefold
Orissa High Court: Sashikant Mishra J. allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR and the criminal proceeding due to inordinate delay