Settlement demand extortion or negotiation? Bombay HC quashes FIR over demand of ₹25 lakh each by flat purchasers
The Court held that an exorbitant settlement demand, without an intentional threat or fear of injury, does not attract Section 385 IPC.
The Court held that an exorbitant settlement demand, without an intentional threat or fear of injury, does not attract Section 385 IPC.
Four FIRs were filed against former MLA Suresh Rathore arising from social media posts projecting complainants as involved in the Ankita Bhandari murder, a case that had already concluded with three convictions and life sentences. Two were lodged by persons who were neither the victim nor the affected party, covering the same allegations as the victim’s own FIR.
A wayward pet feline ‘Daisy’ went missing, leading to a complaint by the pet owner and subsequent filing of chargesheet against the petitioner levelling serious allegations such as insulting a woman’s modesty.
“In Indian societal norms, the matters relating to sexual assault in large number of cases are not being reported by women timely… The possibility of accused taking benefit of the situation… cannot be ruled out.”
“A bare perusal of the FIR revealing commission of cognizable offence and the investigation has to be conducted.”
The Court held that while delay in reporting rape is not always material, in the present case, it is crucial due to the complainant’s history and the timing of her allegations.
The Court stated that when the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was already filed by the petitioners, Respondent 2 had all the opportunity to defend in that pending complaint case, and without doing so, present complaint case was filed implicating the petitioners.
“The Court set aside the impugned summoning order and the criminal proceedings against the wife under Section 494 IPC. However, the Court did not quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the wife under Sections 504, 506 IPC.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on malicious prosecution.
Madras High Court: G.R. Swaminathan, J., emphasised that all stakeholders in the process of administration of justice should discharge their commitments sincerely.
Madras High Court: G.R. Swaminathan, J., held that to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution, the acquittal of the plaintiff alone
Kerala High Court: In an appeal against the order delivered by JMFC, Mallapuram; P. Somarajan, J., allowed the same setting aside the
South Africa High Court, Eastern Cape Local Division: M.S. Jolwana, J. held that even if the plaintiff is arrested and spends some
Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: An Application for leave to appeal under and in terms of Article