Month: January 2024

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 – Passports Act, 1967 – Section 12(b) – Quashing of FIR – Wife forged her husband’s signatures in order to obtain a passport for their minor child – In order to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property – FIR quashed – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MARIAM FASIHUDDIN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datt,…

Mandatorily mention in a application for grant of bail: 1. Details and copies of order(s) passed in the earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which have been already decided. 2. Details of any bail application(s) filed by the petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the court in question or the higher court, and if none is pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made 3. The registry of the court should also annex a pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question -4. It should be the duty of the Investigating Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with reference to different bail applications or other proceedings in the same crime case

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUSHA DURUKA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ODISHA — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Hindu Succession Act, 1955 – Section 16 – Partition Suit – Entitlement of share to the children of void or voidable marriages – If a marriage is considered void or invalid, the children born from that marriage still have a legal right to inherit their parent’s property

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJA GOUNDER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M. SENGODAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Civil…

Anticipatory Bail – Breach of contract – Civil Dispute – Mere breach of contract does not amount to an offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction – Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged – Anticipatory bail granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAY SHRI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 227 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 341, 323 and 302 – Murder – Discharge – As per post-mortem report death of the deceased was natural – No injury was found on the chest or any other part of the body of the deceased – Order of discharge upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMALINGAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. N. VISWANATHAN — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Assam Police Act, 2007 – Section 14(2) – Assam Police Manual – Rule 63(iii) – Deputy Commissioner would not be competent to assess the overall performance of Superintendent of Police (SP) – Rule 63(iii) of Assam Police Manual invalid on the ground that it is in direct conflict with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 197 and 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 409, 419, 420, 423, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 473 – Fabrication of records – Sanction for prosecution – Section 197 Cr.PC does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission of a public servant while in service – It is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties – Certainly, a view can be taken that manufacturing of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of the official duty of a public servant

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHADAKSHARI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.