Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Mere allegations of affiliation with Dawood Ibrahim do not attract the application of Section 20 of the UAPA; mere sharing of pictures of NDPS-prohibited substances does not attract the provisions of the NDPS.
The Court opined that since the petition was filed after 01-07-2024, it ought to have been filed under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The Court stated that “if an FIR is registered prior to 01-07-2023 under the CrPC, it would amount to a pending enquiry/investigation within the meaning of Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS.”
The Court referred to Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559, wherein it was explained that no lexical dexterity nor precedential profusion is needed to come to the realistic conclusion that he who is under the control of the court or is in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the purpose of Section 439, CrPC.
The Delhi High Court opined that true justice, and the ends of justice would not be served by quashing the FIR without a trial, but by conducting a trial to fairly ascertain the real culprit, whether it be the accused or the complainant.
The Court was of the view that the petition and the accompanying application seeking an extension of time were filed and registered in the registry of this Court when CrPC, 1973 was in force, hence, the matter would fall under the scope of Section 531(2)(a) and this petition should be adjudicated through the provisions of CrPC, 1973.
The Delhi High Court stated that a prima facie case of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was made against K. Kavitha based on the material placed on record.
“There is clear distinction between rape and a consensual sex. The Court in such cases carefully examined whether accused actually wanted to marry victim or had a malafide motive and had made a false promise to this effect to satisfy his lust, as latter false ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between breach of promise or not fulfilling the promise.”
The Court reiterated that “investigation is the exclusive privilege and prerogative of the police which cannot be interfered with. But if the police does not perform its statutory duty in accordance with law or is remiss in the performance of its duty, the court cannot abdicate its duties on the precocious plea that investigation is the exclusive prerogative of the police.”
The Delhi High Court stated that the period of sentence served by a convict is only one of the several factors that are to be taken into consideration while adjudicating an application seeking suspension of sentence.
“For the reason that the parties are Hindus, one cannot assume that the order of maintenance is in recognition of the right under HAMA, for, Section 125 CrPC is secular and applicable to all.”
“If any part of the offence or even one instance of the overt act is committed in India, the sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not required”
The Court held that no previous sanction as contemplated under S. 197 CrPC would be necessary for investigating and filing final report for offences under S. 509 IPC and S. 3 of the SC/ST Atrocities Act, except for the offences punishable under S. 506 IPC.
The Delhi High Court said that the impact of terrorist activities on society is profound and far-reaching, as these crimes can sow fear and insecurity among communities, as well as disrupt social harmony.
The Court stated that when considering the material produced, it appears improbable that the accused persons’ visit to the police station was solely to fabricate evidence.
The Gauhati High Court noted that after completion of the investigation, the petitioner was not examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to enable him to personally explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, nor was his statement recorded.
The Court was of the view that both, the applicant in viewing the requirement of filing the appeal within six months as per S. 378(5) CrPC; and the respondents contending that the appeal should have been filed within sixty days as per S. 378(5), were equally incorrect.
‘While the victim/complainant has a right to be heard in the revision proceedings, such right does not upscale itself to a right to be impleaded in the said criminal revision’
The Delhi High Court says that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be permitted to be free by merely contending that the accounts, though in his name, were being managed by the co-accused.