Friday, September 17, 2021

Kerala High Court denies anticipatory bail to fake lawyer Cessy Xavier

The Kerala High Court on Thursday declined to grant anticipatory bail to a woman who had allegedly practiced law for two years without a law degree (Cessy Xavier v. State of Kerala)

Single judge Justice Shircy V directed the accused, Cessy Xavier to surrender to the authorities for any interrogation they may deem necessary.
A First Information Report was registered against Xavier for offences punishable under Sections Sections 417 (punishment for cheating) and 419 (punishment for cheating by personation) of the Indian Penal Code, both of which are bailable offences.

Bombay High Court directs District Collector to pay ₹10 lakh each to widows of 3 deceased manual scavengers

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Madhav Jamdar also directed the Maharashtra government to ensure that the "shameful practice of manual scavenging" is discontinued at the earliest.

"Despite strict legislative intent, this shameful practice continues and this should shock the collective conscience of the society,” the Bench remarked.

The Court was hearing a petition by the widows seeking compensation in light of the Supreme Court judgment.

Safai Karamchari Andolan And Ors vs Union Of India A
nd Ors on 27 March, 2014

Allahabad High Court grants bail to man accused of "propagating concept of Islamic State"

"Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. the State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail."

Thursday, September 16, 2021

Adults have right to choose their matrimonial partner irrespective of religion: Allahabad High Court

Read Order

A Division Bench comprising of Justices Manoj Kumar Gupta and Deepak Verma, granted protection to the inter-faith couple and said that not even their parents can object to their relationship.

"It cannot be disputed that two adults have right of choice of their matrimonial partner irrespective of religious professed by them....As the present petition is a joint petition by the two individuals who claims to be in love with each other and are major, therefore, in our considered opinion, nobody, not even their parents, could object to their relationship," the Court said

Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Attorney General KK Venugopal grants consent for contempt of court against Ajeet Bharti for YouTube video on SC

"I find that the contents of the video, which have been watched by 1.7 Lakh viewers are vituperative, gross and highly derogatory to the Supreme Court of India and judiciary as a whole," Venugopal said.

NCLAT cannot condone delay beyond 15 days in appeal against decision of NCLT: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that as per Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) cannot condone a delay beyond 15 days in an appeal filed against a decision of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) [National Spot Exchange Limited v. Mr Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional].

Read Judgment

Bumper to bumper insurance not mandatory: Madras High Court modifies previous order

The Madras High Court has modified its previous order dated August 4 that mandated bumper to bumper insurance for all new vehicles for a period of five years to ensure the safety of passengers, drivers, and owners (The New India Assurance Co Ltd v. K Parvathi).

This Court hope and trust that lawmakers will look into this aspect and examine the need for suitable amendment in the Act, relating to the wide coverage of vehicles so as to protect the innocent victims.”

Provisions of Consumer Protection Rules 2020 -Rule 3(2),Rule 4(2)(c),Rule 6(9) Quashed -Bombay High Court

Read Judgment

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on 14/09/21 set aside provisions of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 which govern the appointment of the president and members to State and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions.

A Bench of Justice SB Shukre and AS Kilor held that the below three provisions were in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and quashed them.

The following Rules were the cause of grievance:

  • Rule 3(2) - prescribed a minimum experience of not less than 20 years for appointment of the president and members of State Commission;

  • Rule 4(2)(c)experience of not less than 15 years for appointment of the president and members of District Commission; and

  • Rule 6(9) provided for the selection committee to determine its procedure for making its recommendations keeping in view the requirement of the Commission.

Sunday, September 5, 2021

Thursday, September 2, 2021

“Purpose of verification of caste certificates by scrutiny committees is to avoid false and bogus claims.” -SC

Read Judgment

The Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose held that the “purpose of verification of caste certificates by scrutiny committees is to avoid false and bogus claims.”

Repeated inquiries for verification of caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Reopening of inquiry into caste certificates can be only in case they are vitiated by fraud or when they were issued without proper inquiry,” 

 The Court placed reliance on the Government Order dated September 12, 2007.

The guidelines issued by G.O.108 dated 12.09.2007 do not permit the State Level Scrutiny Committee to reopen cases which have become final,” stated the Supreme Court.

Monday, August 30, 2021

Divorce to husband on ground of cruelty after wife creates her profile on matrimonial website, levels false allegations -Bombay High Court

Read Judgment

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed a divorce plea by a husband on the ground of cruelty by wife after she levelled fake allegations against him and uploaded her profile on matrimonial websites during the pendency of divorce proceedings.

A Division Bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and GA Sanap held that the wife’s wild and unfounded allegations, as well as her conscious decision to remarry during the pendency of the divorce petition by uploading her profile on two matrimonial websites, were enough to prove that the appellant-husband suffered mental cruelty.

The High Court relied on the following judgments.

In Dr. (Mrs.) Malathi Ravi, M.D. vs. Dr. B. V. Ravi, M.Dit was held that if the wife has no intention to lead a normal life, then on the ground of mental cruelty the decree for divorce can be granted. It was further held that the false allegations by one spouse against the other amounts to mental cruelty.

In Vishwanath S/o. Sitaram Agrawal vs.Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, the Supreme Court had held that mental torture caused by one spouse to the another by making wild and false allegations in a report lodged to the authority as well as in the electronic and print media constitute a mental cruelty and as such the ground for divorce.

In V Bhagat vs. Mrs. D. Bhagat, the Court found that mental cruelty in Section 131 (i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it impossible for that party to live with the other. It is held that the mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.

Saturday, August 28, 2021

Not resisting at first time of sexual assault amounts to pre-consent - while acquitting rape accused: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently acquitted a man accused of rape upon finding that the complainant had not resisted at the first time of the alleged sexual assault, which the Court opined, in this case, amounted to 
pre-consent (Chinnapandi v. State).

Evidence on record clearly shows that young girl was seduced to submit herself to carnal pleasures of accused on the promise of marriage. Had the appellant forcibly ravished PW1, she would have given a complaint either immediately or a little later, instead, the complaint in this case (Ex.P1) has been given only, after coming to know about the betrothal of the appellant with another girl. The conviction and sentence slapped on the appellant for the offence under Section 376 IPC is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge. 

Friday, August 27, 2021

Being in live-in relationship sufficient to show that sexual relationship was consensual: Mumbai court grants bail to rape accused

A live-in relationship by itself is sufficient to show that sexual relationship was consensual, said a Mumbai Court on Wednesday granting bail to a 30-year-old man booked for rape of his live-in partner.

Additional Sessions Judge SU Baghele added that irrespective of the no objection given by the informant, the factual matrix unveiled in the FIR revealed that the relationship was consensual based on the fact that the applicant and informant were living together without getting married.

"The said live­-in ­relationship, by itself is sufficient to show that the sexual relationship was consensual, due to which, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail, dehors the no objection given by the informant, notwithstanding whether it is voluntarily or otherwise," 

Thursday, August 26, 2021

Punjab & Haryana High Court to examine whether wife can lodge rape FIR against husband

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on August 23, decided to adjudicate on the legal validity of a first information report (FIR) under Section 376 (punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code registered by a wife against her husband (Anupam Mahajan vs. the State of Punjab).

The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 376 and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC against the petitioner, his mother and sister.

Economic offenders have huge proceeds of crime, may use it to win over witnesses: Allahabad High Court denies anticipatory bail to accused

Economic offenders are only concerned about personal gain at the cost of “irreparable” loss to the society, the Allahabad High Court observed on Thursday as it rejected the anticipatory bail plea of a man accused in a money laundering case [Pankaj Grover v. Directorate of Enforcement].

Madras High Court makes five-year bumper to bumper insurance mandatory for new vehicles

The Madras High Court has made bumper to bumper insurance mandatory for all new vehicles for a period of five years to ensure the safety of the passengers, driver, and owner (
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. K. Parvathi).

When a buyer is ready to pay a huge amount for purchase of a vehicle, it is really shocking as to why the buyer is not interested in spending a paltry sum to take a policy so as to safeguard himself/herself and others," the Court said.

Supreme Court explains scope and ambit of powers of court under Section 319 CrPC

The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah in a plea under Section 319 CRPC for summoning certain persons as additional accused in a murder case.

The Supreme Court referred to various judgments on the scope of Section 319 CrPC and summarised the following as regards the ambit of the provision:

(i) That while exercising the powers under Section 319 CrPC and to summon the persons not charge-sheeted, the entire effort is not to allow the real perpetrator of an offence to get away unpunished;

(ii) It is for the empowerment of the courts to ensure that the criminal administration of justice works properly;

(iii) The law has been properly codified and modified by the legislature under the CrPC indicating how the courts should proceed to ultimately find out the truth so that the innocent does not get punished but at the same time, the guilty are brought to book under the law;

(iv) To discharge the duty of the court to find out the real truth and to ensure that the guilty do not go unpunished;

(v) Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial;

(vi) Section 319 CrPC allows the court to proceed against any person who is not an accused in a case before it;

(vii) The court is the sole repository of justice and a duty is cast upon it to uphold the rule of law and, therefore, it will be inappropriate to deny the existence of such powers with the courts in our criminal justice system where it is not uncommon that the real accused, at times, getaway by manipulating the investigating and/or the prosecuting agency;

(viii) Section 319 CrPC is an enabling provision empowering the court to take appropriate steps for proceeding against any person not being an accused for also having committed the offence under trial;

(ix) The power under Section 319(1) CrPC can be exercised at any stage after the charge-sheet is filed and before the pronouncement of judgment, except during the stage of Sections 207/208 CrPC, committal, etc. which is only a pretrial stage intended to put the process into motion;

(x) The court can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC only after the trial proceeds and commences with the recording of the evidence;

(xi) The word “evidence” in Section 319 CrPC means only such evidence as is made before the court, in relation to statements, and was produced before the court, in relation to documents;

(xii) It is only such evidence that can be taken into account by the Magistrate or the court to decide whether the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised and not on the basis of material collected during the investigation;

(xiii) If the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, it can exercise the power under Section 319 CrPC and can proceed against such other person(s);

(xiv) That the Magistrate/court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in examination-in-chief, powers under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised;

(xv) That power under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised even at the stage of completion of examination-in-chief and the court need not has to wait till the said evidence is tested on cross-examination;

(xvi) Even in a case where the stage of giving an opportunity to the complainant to file a protest petition urging upon the trial court to summon other persons as well who were named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet has gone, in that case also, the Court is still not powerless by virtue of Section 319 CrPC and even those persons named in FIR but not implicated in the charge-sheet can be summoned to face the trial, provided during the trial some evidence surfaces against the proposed accused (maybe in the form of examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses);

(xvii) while exercising the powers under Section 319 CrPC the Court is not required and/or justified in appreciating the deposition/evidence of the prosecution witnesses on merits which is required to be done during the trial.