Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
We are now suffering from a virtual information diarrhoea where everyone is bombarded with messages. Hence, what is exchanged as a message on social media can have a very big influence within a short time. That is the reason as to why a person must exercise social responsibility while creating or forwarding a message.
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
by Kapil Madan † and Pulkit Pandey††
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia J. disposed of the petition and quashed the FIR/complaint. The facts of the case are
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., decided whether a settlement of parties wherein an accused and his family members who subjected his
Chhattisgarh High Court: Narendra Kumar Vyas, J., quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner by Respondent 4 at Women Police Station, Bilaspur
The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives.
Delhi High Court: Emphasizing on the gravity of seriousness of Section 307 Penal Code, 1860, Subramonium Prasad, J., observed that, “…an offence