Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The rape survivor addressed a letter to the Police stating that she had forgiven the accused persons, considering their young age and desired not to proceed any further in the matter.
The Court opined that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC though wide should not be capriciously or arbitrarily exercised but should be exercised in appropriate cases to do real and substantial justice. Thus, quashing of charge sheet or setting aside summoning order on appreciation of evidence is not justified.
“It is clear that Section-125 CrPC is social justice legislation which orders for the maintenance of wives, children and parents and the legislature has provided in Sections-125(5) CrPC., 126 CrPC as well as Section-127 CrPC, certain conditions on fulfilling of which, order passed u/s 125 CrPC can be recalled or modified”
The Court opined that as parties have amicably settled their disputes, no useful purpose shall be served in continuing with proceedings of the present FIR as it will create further acrimony between the parties.
Sexual violence against a woman should invite no tolerance, however, manipulating the system by the parties to a case under Section 376 IPC would equally need to be dealt with a stern hand and serious efforts should be made to address and remedy failings within the criminal justice system and through our society.
Supreme Court wondered “how a Civil Writ Petition for clubbing First Information Reports could be entertained”.
“Mehul Choksi left the country long ago and he did not cooperate with any prosecution, though various complaints are filed against Gitanjali Gems as well as in his individual capacity. He has no respect towards the process of law”.
“The question of debt barred by limitation is to be decided on basis of evidence as, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact”.
“FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial and the delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR”.
“Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law and it may be either civil or criminal depending upon the nature and gravity of the negligence. Criminal negligence, on the other hand, is gross and culpable, neglect or failure to exercise, reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury, either to the public generally or to an individual in particular”.
The power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is of the widest amplitude, which can be exercised to secure ends of justice, unless barred by specific provision or by implication. Such power can be exercised to prevent unwanted harassment caused to a respondent with the application of rigour of the Criminal Procedure Code.
While quashing the impugned criminal proceeding against the petitioners, the Court held that a defaulter borrower holds the secured asset only in trust or symbolic possession and even if the petitioners have entered the said property, the same cannot be marked out as trespassers in other’s’ property.
Allahabad High Court said that, since the trial in question is of 2015, therefore, the precaution to that effect, which has been taken by the Trial Court, is appreciated, but in the light of such precaution, a single opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witness may not be denied
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant petition for quashment of complaint, the Bench of Suraj Govindaraj, J., held that in the
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia J. disposed of the petition and quashed the FIR/complaint. The facts of the case are
Karnataka High Court: H P Sandesh J. allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. This petition is filed
Supreme Court: In a case where the Gujarat High Court had quashed criminal proceedings at the behest of persons who were not
The Courts ought to be vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party.
“The exercise of inherent power of the High Court is an extraordinary power which has to be exercised with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare case, to scuttle the prosecution at its inception.”
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan*, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has reiterated that an application by a