Category: Cr P C

Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code SVT., 1989 – Sections 306 and 411 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 39 – The case involves charges against respondents for attempting to ambush a CRPF convoy with explosives – The Special Judge, NIA, took cognizance for some offences but not others due to procedural issues – The appeal challenges the High Court’s judgment on the cognizance of charges under various sections of the RPC, 1989, and UAPA, 1967, particularly focusing on the applicability of Section 196-A of JK CrPC, 1989 – The National Investigation Agency argues that post the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the CrPC, 1973 should apply, and the need for authorization under CrPC, 1989 is not required – The respondents argue that the complaint was conveyed when CrPC, 1989 was in force, and non-compliance recorded by the court should be upheld – The Supreme Court allows the appeal in part, allowing the appellant to seek appropriate authorization under CrPC, 1989, and directing the trial court to take cognizance if the appellant complies with the required authorization under CrPC, 1989.

(2024) INSC 447 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY NEW DELHI — Appellant Vs. OWAIS AMIN @ CHERRY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. M.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 323, 406, 498A and 506 – Cruelty – Quashing of Chargesheet based on an FIR lodged by the appellant’s wife – The main issue is whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be quashed based on the allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty – The appellant argues that the FIR is vague, general, and lacks specific instances of criminal conduct – It is claimed to be a counterblast to a divorce petition and a domestic violence case, with an unexplained delay in filing the FIR indicating malice – The respondent contends that the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence and the truthfulness of these allegations should be determined by the trial court – The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, finding them to be an abuse of process and a travesty of justice – The Court reasoned that the allegations were made with an oblique motive and that continuing the proceedings would be unjust – The Court applied the principles from previous cases, emphasizing the need to scrutinize allegations in matrimonial disputes carefully and to prevent misuse of legal provisions – The Court concluded that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should have been exercised by the High Court to quash the proceedings and called for a relook at the relevant legal provisions to address the pragmatic realities of matrimonial disputes.

2024 INSC 369 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ACHIN GUPTA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.…

“The charge sheet needs to include witness statements and include complete, clear entries that specify each accused person’s role” Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2) – The appeals concern the nature of chargesheets filed by the state/police in some jurisdictions, particularly when they lack sufficient details of facts constituting the offense or relevant evidence – The main issue is whether chargesheets are being filed without adequate details or evidence, often merely reproducing the complainant’s details from the FIR, and whether this meets the legal requirements – The judgment discusses the legal position on the contents of a chargesheet as per Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with reference to the recent judgment in Dablu Kujur vs. State of Jharkhand – The Court quashed the chargesheet and summoning order, discharging the appellants, and clarified that the observations made will not affect any civil proceedings.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHARIF AHMED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – 147, 342, 323, 307 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2) , 190 (1)(b) and 200 – Protest Petition – Magistrate to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint, proceeding according to Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C – The Court’s reasoning focused on the proper procedure for taking cognizance of an offence and the treatment of a Protest Petition when additional affidavits are filed – The conclusion emphasizes the Magistrate’s liberty to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and the need to follow due process – The judicial opinion clarified the legal position regarding the Magistrate’s options upon receiving a closure report from the Investigating Officer.

2024 INSC 316 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUKHTAR ZAIDI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish…

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.