Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court opined that the objective of a preliminary inquiry is to screen out frivolous and motivated complaints, not to ascertain the veracity of the information received.
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.
‘In a young age when relationship develops, they naturally carry impression that they will get married. However, sometimes it fails, and the girl, considering herself to be betrayed and deceived, cannot lodge the FIR saying that rape has been committed with her.”
“No reasonable person would believe the prosecutrix’s allegations given the circumstances and inconsistencies in her statements.”
The Court stated that applicant’s inclusion of specific dress details not related to the actual incident suggests an intent to attribute the incident to a particular group, potentially inciting enmity and disrupting harmony.
“Inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR/ complaint should be exercised sparingly, with care and caution in rarest of rare cases.”
MP High Court noted that even if the receipt book was not an EFT Book, it had the seal of the North-Central Railway, creating the impression of official railway documentation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court stated that “throwing a 13-month-old child on the floor by itself would amount to an attempt to murder and throwing a paperweight towards his head would further aggravate the situation.”
“Section 482 CrPC, 1973, iterates the inherent power of the Court, which is extraordinary in nature and assiduously to be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to serve the ends of justice.”
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