Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Madhya Pradesh High Court note that questions regarding the petitioner’s status in the ancestral house and the subsequent eviction suit cannot be adjudicated in Section 482 CrPC petition.
“Court must strive to so interpret the statute as to promote and advance the object and purpose of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary the Court may even depart from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning and there need no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language.”
‘Money, it seems, is to be exchanged for getting a quietus to the present criminal proceedings for offence of rape—a proposition that is not only immoral but also strikes at the very core of our criminal justice system.’
“There is no proof that the CCTV Camera is directed towards the house of Respondent 2, and it is merely a suspicion. Further, there is no proof that the petitioners/accused had contacted Respondent 2 to foster a personal relationship.”
“In view of the fact that parties have mutually settled their disputes, in order to put a quietus to the litigation pending between them, this Court sees no reason to continue the proceedings as no useful purpose will be served in doing so.”
While examining the difference between false promise to marry and breach of promise to marry, the Court held that from the facts and circumstances of the case i.e., the extent of being physically involved with her on the false promise to marry in near future. The defacto-complainant being already married, the petitioner cannot be held liable for committing the alleged offences.
Dismissing the revision petition filed for quashing of FIR and criminal proceeding against the petitioner/husband, the Court held that prima facie case of a cognizable offence of cruelty can be make out against the petitioner/husband therefore inherit power of High Court under S. 482 CrPC cannot be exercised.
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary, JJ. dismissed a petition which was filed praying
Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna, J., quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.87 of 2022 of Byadarahalli Police Station pending
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. allowed a petition which was filed to quash FIR for offence under Sections 498-A,
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Atul Sreedharan, J. allowed a petition which was filed for quashing of Crime which was registered for an
Orissa High Court: Sashikant Mishra J. allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR and the criminal proceeding due to inordinate delay
Chhattisgarh High Court: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J., dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such
Delhi High Court: C. Hari Shankar, J., addressed a petition with regard to quashing of FIR wherein petitioner was in custody for loitering
Delhi High Court: The Bench of Sunil Gaur, J. dismissed a petition seeking quashing of FIR filed for the offences punishable under Sections
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, dismissed a petition for quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ajay Mohan Goel, J., allowed a criminal petition filed by the accused-petitioner
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a recent appeal before the High Court, it has held that a compromise between the parties