Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the present case, a 21-year-old accused is offered admission in International University of Applied Sciences Berlin (Germany) and wants to pursue his study abroad. However, he was denied permission to travel abroad on mere apprehension of fleeting the legal process.
Actors Shah Rukh Khan and Deepika Padukone are Brand Ambassadors of the Hyundai having no connection with the sale of vehicle in question and do not deal with affairs of Company of consumer complaints for repairing of manufacturing defects.
In the present case, the High Court could have examined the petitioner’s grievance, since it is evident from the petition, that the petitioner sought to invoke the twin jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the FIR.
The Court was deciding the issue of maintainability of a petition, wherein it was argued that instead of filing the petition under Section 528 BNSS, it ought to have been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), as the BNSS came into force on 1-7-2024, whereas the FIR was filed in 2022.
“The specific incidents pleaded in the complaint against the husband has already resulted in initiation of criminal proceedings against him and the reliefs sought in the complaint are being pursued against husband and being heard by the Trial Court.”
“As there is no specific allegation that how the advertisement was false and misleading so as to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of 1954 Act then there was no occasion for the trial court to take the cognizance and summon the petitioners to face trial.”
“When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect”.
“The law requires that for an allegation of malafide to be sustained, it must be pleaded with specificity and supported by material facts. In the absence of mens rea, or a demonstrable element of ill-intention, such a prayer cannot be entertained.”
The Court reiterated that heinous offences and crimes against society cannot be quashed merely on the basis of compromise.
The Court directed the State to requisition and submit the case diary and relevant documents before the next date of hearing.
“A person who is single marrying another whose marriage is subsisting is not liable under Section 494 IPC, but the person whose marriage is subsisting would be liable.”
“It is relevant to note that the FIR need not disclose any specific offence. The FIR should indicate that prima facie an allegation of commission of an offence exists and such an allegation requires an investigation.”