Category: Cr P C

Forging a power of attorney and a sale deed – High Court erred in assuming that there was no criminality involved in the alleged offences and that the matter was purely civil in nature – The Supreme Court also clarifies that the Sub-Registrar had the authority to initiate prosecution under the Registration Act, 1908, and that the quashing of the circular on which the Sub-Registrar relied did not affect the merits of the case.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVIN KUMAR RAI — Appellant Vs. SURENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

By passing such orders of staying the investigations and restraining the investigating agencies from taking any coercive measure against the accused pending the petitions under Section 482 Cr.PC, the High Court has granted blanket orders restraining the arrest without the accused applying for the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.PC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Appellant Vs. NIRAJ TYAGI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. )…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 420 – Quashing of FIR – Misuse of Power of Attorney -The dispute, if any, is between the land-owners/principals inter-se and/or between them and the PoA-holder – It would be improper to drag the appellant into criminal litigation, when he had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor any misdeed by the PoA-holder vis-a-vis the land-owners/principals – Moreover, the entire consideration amount has been paid by the appellant to the PoA-holder

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. )…

Allegations do not establish the ingredients of criminal offences – Dispute between the parties was essentially a commercial nature – The Court concludes that the dispute between the parties is essentially a commercial one, and the allegations do not establish the ingredients of criminal offences such as criminal breach of trust – The Court quashes the criminal complaint case and the summoning order, allowing the appeal.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SACHIN GARG — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

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.…

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…

CHANDRABABU NAIDU -As we have expressed opinions taking different views on the interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as also its applicability to the appellant in the subject-case, we refer the matter to the Honble the Chief Justice of India. The Registry to place the papers before the Honble the Chief Justice of India so that appropriate decision can be taken for the constitution of a Larger Bench in this case for adjudication on the point on which contrary opinions have been expressed by us.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Rs 25 LAKHS IMPOSED ON UNSCRUPLOUS LITIGANT – Unnecessary turning of a civil matter into a criminal case not only overburdens the criminal justice system but also violates the principles of fairness and right conduct in legal matters – Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to go scot-free – They should be put to strict terms and conditions including costs. It is time to check with firmness such litigation initiated and laced with concealment, falsehood, and forum hunting – Even State actions or conduct of government servants being party to such malicious litigation should be seriously reprimanded – This Court impose costs of Rs. 25 lakhs on respondent-complainant.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESH GUPTA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…