Category: Cr P C

Mental and physical torture and demands of dowry – Reduction of sentence – Compensation to wife and children – If the appellant is showing remorse and is willing to make arrangements for second wife and his two children born out of the wedlock – This Court not like to come in the way of such an arrangement, which should be beneficial to wife and her children – Object of any criminal jurisprudence is reformative in character and to take care of the victim. reduce the sentence to the period undergone in case the appellant pays to second wife for her benefit and her children’s benefit a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMAUL SK. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Quashing of criminal proceedings – Stage of framing of charge – High Court has entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, – HELD it is not a court conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SARANYA — Appellant Vs. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Summoning additional accused – HELD As per the settled preposition of law, the powers under Section 319 CrPC can be exercised at any stage before the final conclusion of the trial. – dismissing the application under Section 319 CrPC submitted on behalf of the complainant to summon the private respondents herein as additional accused are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANJEET SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Improper To Quash FIR U/s 482 CrPC When There Are Serious Triable Allegations – the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. HELD the High Court cannot act like the Investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an Appellate Court.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2021 Kaptan Singh …Appellant Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and others …Respondents J U…

CrPC – S 482 – IPC – Ss 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477A read with 120B – In exceptional cases with caution and circumspection, giving brief reasons, High Court has power passed to pass an protection interim order. there may be allegations of abuse of process of law, converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, with a view to pressurize the accused. High Court has given elaborate reasons as to how the allegations of bank fraud were developed during the proceedings concerning allegations of election fraud.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee…

S E B I Act, 1992 – Ss 24(1) & 24A – Compounding of offence – SEBI’s consent cannot be mandatory before SAT or the Court before which the proceeding is pending, for exercising the power of compounding under Section 24A- offences which lie outside the IPC, compounding may be permitted only if the statute which creates the offence contains an express provision for compounding before such an offence can be made compoundable – Power of compounding must, in other words, be expressly conferred by the statute which creates the offence.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH GUPTA — Appellant Vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M R Shah,…

(CrPC) – Section 197 – Protection of Sanction – HELD to find out whether the alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” , the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDRA DEVI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Fraud and misappropriation of funds – Power under Section 156(3) can be exercised by the Magistrate even before he takes cognizance provided the complaint discloses the commission of cognizable offence – he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SUPREME BHIWANDI WADA MANOR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

Insecticides Act, 1968 – Ss 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 33, 29 – (CrPC) – Ss 200 & 202 – Misbranding HELD Proviso to Sec 200 of Cr PC, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty – Further, by virtue of Section 293 of Cr PC, report of the Government Scientific Expert is, per se, admissible in evidence – Cr PC itself provides for exemption from examination of such witnesses, when the complaint is filed by a public servant

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Navin Sinha and R. Subhash…

REMISSION – if a prisoner has undergone more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, the State Government, as an appropriate Government, is competent to pass an order of premature release, but if the prisoner has not undergone 14 years or more of actual imprisonment, the Governor has a power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites and remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person de hors the restrictions imposed under Section 433-A of the Constitution

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJ KUMAR @ BITTU — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

You missed