Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC does not necessarily require proof of dowry demands; physical or mental cruelty alone is sufficient.
“The then SP Datia has no regards for the law of land, and he is in habit of functioning as a Police Officer according to his own whims and wishes, thereby giving a complete go-by to the law of the land.”
“The nominee is nothing but a trustee who holds money on behalf of all the legal representatives.”
The Court reiterated that heinous offences and crimes against society cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.
“If the officers had allowed or compelled the petitioners to work in the field for the safety of people, specifically when the country was fighting hard against the COVID-19 pandemic, then such an action of the officers cannot be said to be contrary to law or mala fide.”
“Statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of CrPC cannot be given preference over the FIR and the statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC.”
The Court clarified that under Section 125(4) CrPC, maintenance can only be denied if the wife is living in adultery, which requires proof of a sexual relationship.
The applicant bore sole responsibility for any adverse effects arising from the inability to cross-examine the prosecutrix due to repeated delay tactics.
The Court deemed the Coordinate Bench decision in Narmadi Prasad v. State of M.P., as per incuriam, as it did not consider the Aadhaar Card’s intended use solely as identity-only proof.
In the instant matter, the husband deliberately took loan after the separation to bring down his net take home salary, therefore, the Court held that it cannot be considered as statutory and mandatory deduction.
The Court criticised the state of uncertainty among various officers due to inconsistent application of the Ordinance and suggested that the State Government should have provided clarity.
The Court noted that the land’s exclusion was based on expert recommendations and legal restrictions, including Regulation 119, which prohibits acquiring land within 45 meters of a railway or highway.
Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld orders restraining the petitioners from raising construction on the disputed land.
“After realizing that the Court may not pass a favourable order, if an attempt is made by a Lawyer to seek adjournment, then it is a glaring example of Bench hunting.”
The Court noted that the property in question, which includes ancient monuments like the Tomb of Shah Shuja, Tomb of Nadir Shah, and Bibi Sahib’s Masjid, had been declared as protected under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904.
The Court directed the revenue officer to undergo a six-month training program to improve their understanding of judicial and quasi-judicial responsibilities when they pleaded inability to understand court order to reopen mutation file.
The Court dismissed the bail application with the liberty to the applicant to renew his bail application after the co-accused surrenders.
The Court stated that the applicants had not acted in good faith, as they failed to take necessary steps to maintain the road or close/regulate traffic despite knowing the hazardous condition.
The Court reiterated that the court cannot open its own order on merits specifically in the light of the bar as contained under Section 362 of CrPC.
The Court held that a writ petition against a show-cause notice is generally not maintainable, as established in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28.