Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasised that a purely civil dispute should not be converted into a criminal prosecution.
“Now a day it is very common for the husband and wife to reside or do jobs outside of India and their parents are made to suffer in India by way of criminal or matrimonial litigation.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the impugned FIR and its subsequent criminal proceedings by the prosecutrix aged about 17 years 10 months.
The present case is “nothing but the assimilation of personal and political antipathies, more precisely, a politically oriented-animosity, which makes the petitioner’s prosecution malicious.”
The Delhi High Court observed that a law student shall not represent a party or provide legal counsel in any legal proceeding before a court of law before being properly enrolled by a bar council and being admitted to the bar.
The petitioners have told the Court that though they are not directly affected by Rajasthan High Court’s order, they had approached the Court as the State, which is the Guardian of the interests of the persons living in the State, has chosen not to appeal and if the accused teacher will go unpunished in this case, not only him but other teachers may also commit similar offences with girls in future.
Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., quashed the criminal proceeding registered under Sections 420, 406, 34, 120-B of the Penal Code