Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Calcutta High Court found the complaint lacked essential ingredients, the summons were mechanical, and the complainant was a stranger to the loan.
The Kerala High Court held that a mere allegation of a false promise to marry by a woman in a subsisting marriage did not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 69 of the BNS and, consequently, quashed the FIR and all further proceedings.
The Court observed that a mere change of Counsel is no ground to entertain a challenge to the cognizance order when the trial is at the stage of hearing final submissions
J&K and Ladakh High Court held that fear or panic alone does not satisfy the provision unless the statement is intended, or likely, to promote enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups.
The Court held that while mere registration of an FIR does not attach stigma and every accused is presumed innocent, the increasing criminal cases involving practising advocates warrant institutional attention and policy consideration by the Bar Councils.
In the case at hand, pursuant to the Court’s referral to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement.
“The statutory mandate under Section 21, POCSO Act admits of no dilution, no hesitation, and no delay. The duty to report an offence against a child is not a matter of institutional discretion but an imperative cast by the statute, the breach of which itself constitutes a distinct offence.”
The Court warned that permitting reopening of quashing orders on the basis of subsequent matrimonial disputes would fundamentally defeat the object underlying exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
“Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the High Court while exercising its inherent power can proceed to quash the proceedings.”
“Section 3, Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 deals with the punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel, and the said provision has no application to the petitioner who is alleged to be merely a customer.”
“Minor skirmishes that happens in the family between the husband and the wife are projected to become a crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or even under Section 504 IPC”
“Criminal litigation between near relatives or co-sharers often originate from civil or matrimonial disputes and directing the quashment of proceedings by invoking the inherent powers in cases of personal nature not involving any heinous offence, is likely to meet the ends of justice.”
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.”