{"id":202093,"date":"2018-09-21T13:03:16","date_gmt":"2018-09-21T07:33:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=202093"},"modified":"2018-09-28T10:13:54","modified_gmt":"2018-09-28T04:43:54","slug":"no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"No bar for prosecution under IPC merely because provisions of FSS Act provide penalties; doctrine of double jeopardy not applicable: SC \u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>The Bench comprising of S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. disposed of a criminal appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against the judgment of the Bombay High Court whereby an FIR\u00a0 filed against the respondents was quashed.<\/p>\n

The FIR was filed against the respondents, for the transportation and sale of gutkha\/pan masala, under Sections 26 and 30 of the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 along with Sections 188, 227, 273 and 328 IPC. The respondents filed criminal petitions before the High Court for quashing the FIRs. The High Court allowed the petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the State filed the instant appeal.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court was of the view that the judgment of the High Court could not be sustained. It was unable to agree with the conclusion of the High Court that non-compliance of the provisions of FSS Act cannot be the subject matter of a prosecution under IPC. The High Court was, observed the Supreme Court, clearly wrong in interpreting the scope of Section 188 IPC. The section does not only cover breach of law and order but is attracted even in cases where the Act complained of causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety. Furthermore, the Court did not accept the position that Section 55 of FSS Act was the only provision which can be resorted to for non-compliance of orders passed under the Act as it is a special enactment. Reference was made to State of Bihar <\/em>v. Murad Ali Khan<\/em>, (1988) 4 SCC 655<\/a>; State of Rajasthan<\/em> v. Hat Singh<\/em>, (2003) 2 SCC 152<\/a>; State (NCT of Delhi)<\/em> v. Sanjay<\/em>, (2014) 9 SCC 772<\/a>. It was observed that there is no bar to a trial or conviction of an offender under two different enactments, but the bar is only to the punishment of the offender twice for the same offence. Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was also discussed to observe that prosecution under two different acts is permissible if the ingredients of the provisions are satisfied on the same facts. It was held that there is a bar for prosecution under IPC merely because provisions in FSS Act prescribe penalties. Therefore, the finding of the High Court on this point was set aside. Regarding the point as to whether offences under Sections 188, 272, 273 and 328 IPC were made out against the respondents, the matter was remanded back to High Court for reconsideration. The appeal was disposed of in the terms above. [State of Maharashtra v. Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan,2018 SCC OnLine SC 1580<\/b><\/a>, decided on 20-09-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. disposed of a criminal appeal filed by the State <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[31845,3067,29573,11061],"class_list":["post-202093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy","tag-FIR","tag-fss-act","tag-prosecution"],"yoast_head":"\nNo bar for prosecution under IPC merely because provisions of FSS Act provide penalties; doctrine of double jeopardy not applicable: SC \u00a0 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"No bar for prosecution under IPC merely because provisions of FSS Act provide penalties; doctrine of double jeopardy not applicable: SC \u00a0\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. disposed of a criminal appeal filed by the State\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-09-21T07:33:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-28T04:43:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/\",\"name\":\"No bar for prosecution under IPC merely because provisions of FSS Act provide penalties; doctrine of double jeopardy not applicable: SC \u00a0 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-09-21T07:33:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-28T04:43:54+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"No bar for prosecution under IPC merely because provisions of FSS Act provide penalties; doctrine of double jeopardy not applicable: SC \u00a0\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"No bar for prosecution under IPC merely because provisions of FSS Act provide penalties; doctrine of double jeopardy not applicable: SC \u00a0 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"No bar for prosecution under IPC merely because provisions of FSS Act provide penalties; doctrine of double jeopardy not applicable: SC \u00a0","og_description":"Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. disposed of a criminal appeal filed by the State","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-09-21T07:33:16+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-28T04:43:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/","name":"No bar for prosecution under IPC merely because provisions of FSS Act provide penalties; doctrine of double jeopardy not applicable: SC \u00a0 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2018-09-21T07:33:16+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-28T04:43:54+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/21\/no-bar-for-prosecution-under-ipc-merely-because-provisions-of-fss-act-provide-penalties-doctrine-of-double-jeopardy-not-applicable-sc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"No bar for prosecution under IPC merely because provisions of FSS Act provide penalties; doctrine of double jeopardy not applicable: SC \u00a0"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":252380,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/06\/principle-against-double-jeopardy\/","url_meta":{"origin":202093,"position":0},"title":"Bom HC | Do principles laid under S. 300 CrPC and principle of double jeopardy under Art. 20(2) of Constitution differ? Explained","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 6, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., while setting aside an impugned order explained the slight difference between principles laid down under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 from the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. Petitioner invoked the principles of nemo\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":270259,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/18\/whether-concurrent-prosecutions-under-s-138-ni-act-and-s-420-ipc-will-amount-to-double-jeopardy-jk-and-ladakh-hc-analyses\/","url_meta":{"origin":202093,"position":1},"title":"Whether concurrent prosecutions under S. 138, NI Act and S. 420, IPC, will amount to double jeopardy? J&K and Ladakh HC analyses","author":"Editor","date":"July 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petitions, the question that came up before that Court was whether a person can be prosecuted for offence under Section 420 of IPC as also for offence under Section 138 of NI Act, on the same set\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298692,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/06\/calcutta-high-court-examines-validity-of-police-investigation-under-fss-act-scc-blog\/","url_meta":{"origin":202093,"position":2},"title":"FSSAI | Can Police, not being Food Safety Officers, investigate food safety matters punishable under IPC? Calcutta High Court examines","author":"Ritu","date":"August 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court dismissed all the three criminal revision applications seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings and deemed them groundless.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"calcutta high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/calcutta-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":337083,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/11\/supreme-court-quashes-false-dowry-case-misuse-section-498a-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":202093,"position":3},"title":"Supreme Court quashes false dowry case; highlights growing misuse of Section 498A IPC against husband and his family for personal vendetta","author":"Apoorva","date":"December 11, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cMaking vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and\/or her family.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Misuse of Section 498A IPC","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Misuse-of-Section-498A-IPC.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":338392,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/03\/non-mentioning-of-vital-facts-assault-in-fir-vitiate-cognizance-taken-by-cjm-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":202093,"position":4},"title":"\u2018Non-mentioning of vital facts of assault or criminal force in FIR\/ Complaint, would vitiate cognizance taken by CJM\u2019; SC quashes proceedings under S. 353 & 186 of IPC","author":"Editor","date":"January 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA written complaint by a public servant before the Court takes cognizance is sine qua non, absence of which would vitiate such cognizance being taken for any offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"vital facts in FIR","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/vital-facts-in-FIR.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/vital-facts-in-FIR.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/vital-facts-in-FIR.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/vital-facts-in-FIR.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277831,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/21\/tenability-of-successive-complaints-based-on-similar-facts-for-dishonour-of-cheque-under-the-negotiable-instruments-act-1881-and-cheating-under-section-420-ipc\/","url_meta":{"origin":202093,"position":5},"title":"Tenability of Successive Complaints Based on Similar Facts for Dishonour of Cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Cheating under Section 420 IPC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 21, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ankur Mishra\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image2-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image2-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image2-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image2-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image2-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=202093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202093\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}