Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.
2024 INSC 782 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LALU YADAV — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.
2024 INSC 783 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. SRINIVAS D. SRIDHAR — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,…
Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.
2024 INSC 784 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S TRIBRO AD BUREAU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram…
Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.
2024 INSC 789 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 5 JUDGES BENCH IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955 ( Before : Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Surya Kant, M.M.…
Motor Accident Claims — The appellants, family members of the deceased claimed compensation for his death in a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by the negligence of the car driver — Whether the car driven by respondent no. 2 was involved in the accident and if the accident was due to the negligence of the car driver — The appellants argued that there was ample evidence showing the car’s involvement and that the lower courts misread the evidence — The respondents contended that the accident was due to the deceased’s negligence and that the car was not involved — The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ findings, holding that the car was involved in the accident and awarded compensation to the appellants — The Court found that the evidence, including witness testimonies and the condition of the car, supported the involvement of the car in the accident — The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, to conclude the car’s involvement — The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were awarded compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- with interest.
2024 INSC 787 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAJEENA IKHBAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MINI BABU GEORGE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant…
Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 307 and 201 — Murder of mother, wife, and daughter, and the attempt to murder of neighbor — Circumstantial Evidence — The main issue was whether the appellant was guilty of the murders and attempted murder, and whether the death penalty was warranted — The appellant argued that the evidence, particularly the testimony of the injured neighbor, was unreliable and that the recoveries of the hammer and clothes were not credible — The State argued that the evidence, including the neighbor’s testimony and the recoveries, proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt — The Supreme Court found the testimony of the neighbor unreliable due to contradictions and delayed recording — The recoveries were also deemed not credible — The Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt — The evidence did not conclusively prove the appellant’s guilt — The Court referred to established principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, highlighting the need for a complete chain of evidence excluding any hypothesis of innocence — The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, directing the appellant to be released if not required in any other case.
2024 INSC 788 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VISHWAJEET KERBA MASALKAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V.…
Child Marriages — Restraint of — The petitioner, an NGO, argues that despite the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, child marriages remain prevalent in India —They seek stronger enforcement and support systems for child brides —The main issue is the failure of authorities to prevent child marriages and the need for effective guidelines and enforcement mechanisms — The petitioner highlights the high rate of child marriages, the ineffectiveness of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs), and the need for comprehensive support for child brides — The Union of India attributes child marriages to societal perceptions and economic pressures, and outlines various government programs aimed at reducing child marriages —The court acknowledges the persistence of child marriages and the need for stronger enforcement and support systems — The court emphasizes the socio-economic determinants of child marriage and the need for a multi-faceted approach to address the issue — The court refers to various laws and international conventions that recognize child marriage as a violation of human rights — The court calls for comprehensive measures, including legal enforcement, judicial measures, community involvement, awareness campaigns, and support systems for child brides.
2024 INSC 790 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SOCIETY FOR ENLIGHTENMENT AND VOLUNTARY ACTION AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 319 — The court can exercise power under section 319 CrPC even on the basis of examination-in-chief, which is part of the evidence.
2024 INSC 794 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASIM AKHTAR — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna…
Citizenship Act, 1955 — Sections 5(1)(b) and 8(2) — Grant of Indian Citizenship — Respondent born in Singapore in 1999 to Indian parents who later renounced their Indian citizenship, applied to resume Indian citizenship in 2017 —Whether respondent is entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) and if he qualifies as a person of Indian origin under Section 5(1)(b) — Petitioner argued he is entitled to Indian citizenship based on his grandparents’ birth in undivided India and his parents’ birth in independent India — The Union of India contended that respondent’s parents lost Indian citizenship upon acquiring Singapore citizenship, making respondent ineligible under the cited sections — The Supreme Court ruled that respondent is not entitled to resume Indian citizenship under Section 8(2) or Section 5(1)(b) — The court found that respondent’s parents ceased to be Indian citizens by operation of law when they acquired Singapore citizenship, and thus Section 8(2) does not apply — The court emphasized the plain language of the Citizenship Act, stating that equitable considerations cannot override statutory provisions — The appeal by the Union of India was allowed — However respondent may apply for citizenship under Section 5(1)(f).
2024 INSC 792 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. PRANAV SRINIVASAN — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, JJ.…
Bank Loan — Auction — Solatium — Co-operative Bank, granted a business loan of Rs. 25,00,000 to respondents 1, 2, 5, and 6 — Upon default, the bank initiated recovery proceedings before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who awarded Rs. 21,92,942 with interest to the bank — The borrowers’ property was auctioned, with the appellant offering the highest bid of Rs. 81,20,000 — A sale confirmation certificate was issued, but the 1st and 2nd respondents challenged the auction in the Karnataka High Court — The court set aside the auction, noting that the borrowers had deposited Rs. 25,61,400 within three months of the writ petition and ordered the bank to refund the auction amount along with 5% additional compensation to the appellant — The appellant argued that the 5% solatium was inadequate and sought interest for being deprived of the auction amount since July 2019 — The court found merit in the appellant’s claim, ruling that the 4th respondent bank, which initiated the auction, must pay the appellant interest at 6% per annum on the Rs. 81,20,000 from 21st July 2019 until the refund — The court modified the earlier judgments, setting aside the 5% compensation and directing the bank to pay interest.
2024 INSC 793 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALIL R. UCHIL — Appellant Vs. VISHU KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,…