revision Archives | SCC Times

There is a difference between false promise to marry and breach of promise to marry; Calcutta High Court quashes offence of Rape

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.

Case Briefs High Courts

Calcutta High Court | Infertility cannot be a ground for divorce

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.

Case Briefs High Courts

Allahabad High Court holds revision order defective for admitting without condoning the delay

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.

Case Briefs High Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court | Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC, 1908 does not affect rights of parties; No revision available

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Alka Sarin, J., dismissed the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside

Case Briefs High Courts

Bombay High Court | Courts cannot be hyper technical in their approach when it comes to petitions under S. 125, CrPC ; son liable to maintain father

Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J. partly allowed a writ petition setting aside the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge and

Case Briefs High Courts

No illegality found in the impugned order during revision; Del HC upholds discharge of Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia along others

Delhi High Court: Geetanjali Goel, J. upholds the discharge of Delhi CM and others in the Anshu Prakash assault case having found

Case Briefs High Courts

Power of Revision vis a vis Stage of Framing of charges; Strong suspicion at the initial stage is sufficient for the court to proceed with framing of charges

Rajasthan High Court: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J., refused to interfere with the impugned order due to lack of any legal infirmity. The

Case Briefs High Courts

Whether the maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act can be sought to be enhanced under the CrPC? Kar HC analyses

Karnataka High Court: M. Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the criminal petition and quashed both the orders by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge.

Case Briefs Foreign Courts

SL CoA | Court not satisfied with the delay caused by pandemic in filing revision, application dismissed in rape of minor case

Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: Menaka Wijesundera and Neil Iddawala, JJ. while deciding on a revision

Case Briefs High Courts

Money laundering offence under PMLA is, layered and multi-fold and includes stages preceding and succeeding offence of laundering money: Del HC

Delhi High Court: While expressing the object of PMLA Act Chandra Dhari Singh, J., expressed that, offence of money laundering is threefold

Case Briefs Supreme Court

“Mini Trial not permissible at the stage of framing of charge”; Supreme Court explains the yardsticks of revisional jurisdiction of High Courts

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

Constitutional validity of Rule 159 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 upheld

Supreme Court: While deciding that whether Rule 159 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 which requires surrender to the custody of