While examining the difference between false promise to marry and breach of promise to marry, the Court held that from the facts and circumstances of the case i.e., the extent of being physically involved with her on the false promise to marry in near future. The defacto-complainant being already married, the petitioner cannot be held liable for committing the alleged offences.
Dismissing the revision petition filed for quashing of FIR and criminal proceeding against the petitioner/husband, the Court held that prima facie case of a cognizable offence of cruelty can be make out against the petitioner/husband therefore inherit power of High Court under S. 482 CrPC cannot be exercised.
The Court, not doubting the bona fides of the District Judge, maintained the legal position of Section 5 stating that revision order was a defective one without condoning the delay. There may be instances where the interest of justice may demand Court’s interference to avoid frustration of proceedings due to technicalities, however, in the present instance nothing restrained the District Judge from deciding Section 5 application.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Alka Sarin, J., dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside
Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J. partly allowed a writ petition setting aside the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge and
Delhi High Court: Geetanjali Goel, J. upholds the discharge of Delhi CM and others in the Anshu Prakash assault case having found
Rajasthan High Court: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J., refused to interfere with the impugned order due to lack of any legal infirmity. The
Karnataka High Court: M. Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the criminal petition and quashed both the orders by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge.
Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: Menaka Wijesundera and Neil Iddawala, JJ. while deciding on a revision
Delhi High Court: While expressing the object of PMLA Act Chandra Dhari Singh, J., expressed that, offence of money laundering is threefold
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah*, JJ., recently held in an interesting case that evaluation
Supreme Court: While deciding that whether Rule 159 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 which requires surrender to the custody of