Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: The Bench of Akshaya Kumar Mishra, J. acquitted the accused by setting aside the order of the Sessions Court since the allegation of dowry or violence were not proven and were vague.

The facts of the case are that the deceased had married the petitioner in 1997 and after a few days he started demanding for cash, T.V., cycle and for the inability to give those articles, the deceased returned to her father’s house and lodged written FIR. Based upon the testimony of the victim, the demand was found to have been proved. A concurrent verdict was passed in 1999 by the Addl. Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal against the judgment given in 1998 passed by the SDJM. However, the deceased had filed an affidavit in pursuance of the order stating that she was staying with her husband and both of them was blessed with two female children. In today’s date, the children are well settled and are living with their father peacefully.

The Court while setting aside the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, held that there was no clinching evidence to hold the accused persons guilty for the reason that the allegation of torture was not specific and demand of dowry was not commensurate to the common man life. [Raibu v. State Of Orissa, 2019 SCC OnLine Ori 28, Order dated 24-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Bench of R.K. Gauba, J. quashed the summoning order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate against the CEO of Swiggy observing that it does not pass the muster of a judicial order.

The incident 

The incident occurred at Delhi-19, a restaurant in Kalkaji, Delhi. The company “Swiggy” is a food aggregator which collects food and beverages from restaurants as per customer’s orders through delivery personnel described as PDP (pick-up and delivery partners). On 14-7-2018, there was a rush of PDPs at Delhi-19 as there was some delay in service by the restaurant. The situation got out of hand inasmuch as the Fleet Manager of Swiggy had to intervene. It was alleged that later some of the PDPs returned and ransacked Delhi-19. In such course, violence erupted and one Kanav Madnani suffered injuries. An FIR was registered on statement of the proprietor of Delhi-19 and after the filing of first charge-sheet was filed against arrested persons. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed on the basis of which CEO of Swiggy (petitioner) was summoned to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

The charge

In the supplementary charge-sheet, the CEO of Swiggy along with others was sought to be put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 338 IPC. It was indicated that he was negligent in framing the policies with respect to the employment of delivery boys and failed to take preventive steps, thereby having intentionally aided by illegal omission, the commission of offence under the sections mentioned herein.

High Court’s decision

The High Court noted that the petitioner was stationed in Bangalore far away from the Delhi, the place of incident. The court was of the view that having regard to CEO’s role and responsibilities, the Magistrate was expected to subject the entire material presented before him to a closer scrutiny.  It was held that the summoning order did not pass the muster of a judicial order. There was no consideration of background facts or the connection between the offence and role of the CEO. In such circumstances, the summoning order was quashed and the matter was remitted back to MM for fresh consideration.[Sriharsha Majety v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6730, dated 25-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Delhi High Court took suo motu cognizance of violence and vandalism against members of the Delhi Bar. The Bar in it’s resolution dated 23rd January, 2018 and 22nd January, 2018 mentioned that the Counsel who were victimised were so victimised because they were appearing as counsel for a lady advocate.

The Court noted that there was shocking similarity in the design and manner of the execution of the incidents of violence and vandalism and hence, opined that the incidents could not be treated as separate incidents. The court noted that FIRs have been filed in relation to the incidents but even after a month, minimal steps have been taken by the police in providing assistance and carrying out investigation. The Court, stating that such violence to thwart legal assistance in pending cases is tantamount to criminal contempt of court. In view of above observations, the Court invoked it’s suo motu jurisdiction to call upon an immediate report from the Delhi Police. Also, it directed the matter to be treated as a writ in public interest. [Court on it’s own motion v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7221, decided on 29.01.2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Amidst the increasing clamour surrounding the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for its unnecessary incisions of the movies, a Division Bench comprising Rohini C.J. and Nath J. upheld the ruling of the Single Bench, rejecting all the incisions/deletions suggested by CBFC for the documentary ‘Textures of Losses’.

The documentary film highlighting the plight of Kashmiris caused due to gun violence in the region had obtained recommendations of CBFC for incisions/deletions of certain portions of the documentary. The recommendations were challenged by the producer/director of the documentary before the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal, which partly upheld the recommendations. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents approached the High Court, where the Single Bench set aside all recommendations in entirety. In the letters patent appeal filed, the appellants represented by Gaurav Sarin contended that the film being on a sensitive topic of violence in Kashmir required consideration with due care and caution in light of protecting the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India enshrined under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution.

The Bench refused to accept that there was any objectionable material in the film, stating that all views expressed by the people in the film are their personal views and are not anti-national. Court noted that the film seemed to depict the emotions of the persons who lost their dear ones in the violence. With the mutual settlement for placing a disclaimer at the commencement of the movie, the Court directed a ‘U’ certificate for the film, disposing the appeal in favour of the respondents. [Central Board of Film Certification v. Pankaj Butalia, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 844,  decided on 15/02/2016]