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.
Section 34 IPC
Homebuyers invested Rs 42 lakh, waited 13 years, Allegedly forced to take possession of incomplete unit: Patiala House Court summons builders
The complaint alleged that despite investing nearly ₹42 lakh and waiting over a decade, the homebuyers were handed an incomplete unit without an occupation certificate, while the builder also failed to honour its pre-EMI commitment, adversely affecting their financial credibility.
When Home Turned into Crime Scene: Allahabad High Court on Parents Killing Minor Daughter & Tenant
“We must take judicial notice of the fact that since times of yore until contemporary ones, a daughter’s pregnancy outside wedlock for an average Indian is a nightmare. It always invites uncontrollable reactions from parents, mostly violent, either for themselves or the daughter or the wrongdoer or both.”
Sexually assaulting minor boys a heinous crime: Bombay HC denies bail
“Though there was no progress in the trial and even the charge was also not framed and the applicant was incarcerated since 22-12-2021, however, the material on record prima facie showed the applicant’s involvement in the crime.”
‘Conviction under S 498-A IPC would be unjustified if cruelty is not proven’; Kerala High Court acquits all accused
“In cases of domestic violence, it is not prudent to look for independent corroboration for the evidence of a victim, particularly when the incidents of domestic violence including ill-treatments and harassments often occur within the confines of a house.”
‘Maybe a case of unhappy/dejected marriage; but not abetment’: Delhi HC upholds acquittal of wife, and her brothers accused of abetting husband’s suicide
The suicide note has no date, creating doubt about when it was written. It neither spells out any circumstance, which can be labelled as abetment on the part of wife and her brothers, nor does it disclose any proximate reason for the suicide.
‘Misunderstanding cannot lead to filing FIR in heinous crime like rape; compromise unacceptable’; Bombay HC refuses to quash FIR
“Compromises in heinous crimes are not in the interest of the society since it will then be easy for the accused persons to get the consent of such informants by putting pressure or using money power.”
Supreme Court upholds Trial Court’s decision acquitting 3 Constables in 20 year old Murder case
“It must be established that all the accused had preplanned and shared a common intention to commit the crime with the accused who has actually committed the crime.”
Not mandatory for PMLA special court to record reasons for cognizance of ED’s Complaint unlike a private complaint under CrPC or BNSS: Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court affirmed that Explanation-II of Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA applies retrospectively
Suspicion alone insufficient for conviction; Orissa High Court acquits two and convicts one in murder case
“In dealing with circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion lingering on mind might take the place of proof and therefore, the Court has to be watchful and ensure that such thing should not take place.”
Spanking on back of a woman without her consent, by a man would constitute an offence under Stalking as defined under S. 354D (1)(i) IPC? Court explains
Court of 30th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru: I.P. Naik, 30th ACMM, addressed a case wherein a pillion on a bike harassed
“A team effort akin to a game of football…”; Supreme Court’s interesting analogy explaining Section 34 of IPC
Supreme Court: Drawing an interesting analogy to explain the scope of Section 34 of IPC, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and
Cal HC | Common intention under S. 34 IPC is a species of constructive liability, not to be confused with similar intention
Calcutta High Court: A Division Bench of Joymalya Baghi and Suvra Ghosh, JJ., partly allowed a criminal appeal against the order of the
Sentence under Section 304 Part II reduced finding absence of common intention: SC
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ., while addressing a criminal appeal regarding assault committed during a
Custodial interrogation not required based on the ‘nature’ and ‘gravity’ of the crime: Kerala HC
Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan J., decided a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Code
Ocular evidence is to be disbelieved where the medical evidence rules out possibility of it being true
Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and S.K. Gangele, JJ. allowed the appeal and acquitted the