The order, in purported exercise of the powers conferred under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (the Act) read with Section 3 (b) of the Sikkim Public Health and Safety (Covid-19) Regulations, 2020 directed the sealing of the said premise. In the Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim led through the single-bench by Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan in the matters of Krishna Kumari Chettri and Anr. v. State of Sikkim and Ors.[WP (Crl.)/1/2020]. 

The facts of the case are the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition against the State-respondents seeking various reliefs. They were aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23/05/2020 issued under the signature of respondent no.2 alleging violation of prohibitory orders and directives and non-compliance of the Standard Operating Procedure for social distancing in the Body Vibes Gym, Rangpo Bazar run by the petitioners.

On 17/06/2020 the respondent no.2 issued another impugned order under Section 51 of the Act directing the respondent no.3 to register a case against the Body Vibes Gym as per the provisions of Section 51(b) of the Act. Pursuant thereto First Information Report (FIR) No. 20 of 20 dated 20.06.2020 was registered at the Rangpo police station under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

On 17.09.2020, I.A. No. 01 of 2020 preferred by the petitioners was heard by this court. Pursuant thereto the impugned order dated 23.05.2020 stayed. In so doing Body Vibes Gym was de-sealed and it started its activities.

The learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that due to the change in the present COVID-19 situation and the lockdown conditions being lifted the running of the Body Vibes Gym is no longer an issue. She further submits that the State authorities are not pursuing the impugned orders and the FIR against the proprietor of the Body Vibes Gym of the Rangpo Bazar.

In view of the assurance given by the learned Additional Advocate General Mr Sabyasachi Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no need to pursue the writ petition further.

The court directed “Taking cognizance of the categorical statement of the learned Additional Advocate General this court directs that the State authorities shall not pursue the impugned orders and close the files relating to them as well as FIR No. 20 of 2020 lodged on 20.06.2020 under Section 188 IPC against the proprietor of Body Vibes Gym, Rangpo Bazar at the Rangpo police station”.

The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Click here to view the judgement.

If any person who commits an act that results into disturbing the peace and public tranquility of an area, he can be bound down by directing him to execute bond for keeping the peace in the said area, provided such an act is against the public at large as held by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh through a learned bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal in the case of Masood Ahmed and another Vs Executive Magistrate Ist Class, Doda and others [APPCR No. 40/2015 c/w CRMC No. 396/2015 (O & M)].

The petitioner No. 1 appeared in person and has vehemently argued that no proper procedure has been followed by the respondent No. 1 for issuing the process against the petitioners. On the other hand, Mr. Suneel Malhotra, GA submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned and the petitioners have been rightly summoned by the respondent No. 1.

The Hon’ble Court after hearing both the sides observed that it is evident that an application was filed by the respondent No. 6 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Doda, who marked the same to the In-charge, Police Post, Kastigarh, Doda. In the said application, it is stated that the petitioners often threaten the respondent No. 6 and his family members with regard to the some ancestral land and they also abuse him. Pursuant to the said application, complaint under section 107/117 Cr.P.C was filed before the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 03.07.2015, summoned the petitioners.

In conclusion, while referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye vs. S.D.M. Mongyr 1971AIR(SC)2486, it was stated that “The proceedings under section 107 of Cr.P.C are preventive in nature and intended to maintain peace and tranquility in the area. If any person who commits an act that results into disturbing the peace and public tranquility of an area, he can be bound down by directing him to execute bond for keeping the peace in the said area, provided such an act is against the public at large. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that nothing has been mentioned except the proceedings under section 107/117 of Cr.P.C have been filed against the petitioners. The Magistrate was required to set forth the substance of the information received in the order so as to enable the petitioners to know about the said information but he has not done so. Learned Magistrate has nowhere recorded his opinion that there exists sufficient ground to take action under the provision of 107 of the Code.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

It is settled law that once the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and is not against the society, the offences, though, non compoundable can be quashed by the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. As held by the Hon’ble High Court of J&K and Ladakh through a learned bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal in the case of Manohar Lal and others Vs UT of J&K and others [CRM (M) No. 628/2021 CrlM No. 1903/2021].

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal challan, titled, UT of J&K Vs Drashan Lal and others arising out of FIR bearing No. 196 of 2020 dated 23.07.2020 registered with Police Station, Domana, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 447 and 147 IPC, pending before the Court of learned Excise Magistrate, Jammu on the ground that the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 have entered into a compromise and pursuant to that compromise, the parties have undertaken to withdraw all the litigations pending against them.

The respondent submits that in view of the compromise arrived at between him and the petitioners, he has no objection in case this Court quashes the criminal challan mentioned above. Learned counsel for the official respondent submits that in light of the present facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate orders as this Court deem fit may be passed.

The Hon’ble High Court after a perusal of the record observed that the dispute between the parties is with regard to the land regarding which the FIR was lodged by respondent No. 3 and now the parties have settled their dispute. The offence under Section 147 is non compoundable, whereas the other offence mentioned above is compoundable. It is settled law that once the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and is not against the society, the offences, though, non compoundable can be quashed by this Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

In conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court, while referring to the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, stated that “In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the criminal challan, titled, Union Territory of J&K Vs. Drashan Lal and others arising out of FIR bearing No. 196 of 2020 dated 23.07.2020 registered with Police Station, Domana, Jammu for commission of offences under Sections 447, 147 IPC, pending before the Court of learned Excise Magistrate, Jammu is quashed”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj

The contract’s conditions must be strictly followed and given natural meaning. Once a policy has been specifically excluded, it cannot be reinstated under any situation. However, the Complainant was found to have not followed the definition provided. This was observed in the matter of MD & CEO ING Vysya Life Insurance Co Ltd v. G.H Govindappa, [ A/641/2017], before Hon’ble Mr. Ravishankar (Presiding Member) and Hon’ble Mrs. Smt. Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi (Member).

The brief facts of the case are as follows, the Complainant bought two insurance policies from the Opposite Party, after which the insurance company sent the original policy bond and a booklet containing the terms and conditions. Soon after, the complainant contacted the OP but did not receive a satisfactory response. In 2014, the complainant asked for a refund, which the company did not repay, therefore, the complainant sent a legal notice to the company saying he did not want to continue with the policies he bought. The Company did not respond to him. It was contended by the OP that the complaint is unmaintainable and deserved to be dismissed. The OP brought it to the notice of the Commission that, the complainant had given his declaration that he understood the terms of the policy and paid the premium amounts. As per Regulation 6(2) of the IRDAI, the policy holder can cancel the policy mentioning the reasons within 15 days from the day the policy is received, this is called the “free look period”. However, the complainant never approached the company within the said period, bur approached the OP after one and half years. On April 21, 2014, the complainant issued a letter stating that he was unable to pay additional premiums due to crop failure in 2013-14 that caused his financial hardship. The Opposite Party dismissed the complainant’s request on June 12, 2014, in accordance with the policy terms and conditions.

The District Commission had allowed the Complaint even though the complainant failed to pay the renewal premiums that were due in 2013, causing the policies to lapse. Furthermore, the opposing party sent frequent reminders via SMS/letters, but the complainant still failed to redo the policies. After referring the District Commission’s decision, and the relevant documents presented by both parties, the State Commission came to the following conclusion: “It is settled law that terms of the policy shall governed the contract between the parties. They have not abided by the definition given therein. Hence, the terms of the contract have to be strictly read and natural meaning be given to it. Once there is specific exclusion of the policy, the same cannot be permitted under any circumstances. Hence, in our opinion, the complainant violated the terms and conditions as per the policy bonds in both policies. Hence, the Opposite Party was fully justified in cancelled the both policies. Moreover, as per the terms and conditions of the policies, the complainant has opportunity to cancel the policy, but, the complainant has not cancelled the policies within free look period of 15 days and the complainant has not renewed the policies during 2013 even after the course of period and reminders made by the Opposite Party also. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the order passed by the District Commission cannot be sustained in same as hereby set aside.”

Click Here to Read the Judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Vagisha Sagar 

This Court no doubt can look in to evidence but cannot appreciate the evidence brought on record by the prosecution as upheld by the High Court of J&K, while referring to the Judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Satish Jaggi v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 195, through a learned bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal in the case of Kewal Sharma Vs Union Territory of J&K [Bail App No. 79/2021].

The petitioner was facing trial for commission of offence under section 302 RPC in a challan, tilted, State vs Kewal Sharma arising out of FIR bearing No. 109/2014 for commission of offence under section 302 RPC pending before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu.

Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds those have been taken in the application. He further argued that the material witnesses have been examined and the whole of the case of prosecution is dependent upon the circumstantial evidence and the petitioner is in custody without there being any evidence against him.

Per contra, Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that while considering the bail application, the merits are not required to be considered and all the arguments raised by Mr. Anmol Sharma pertained to the merits of the case and as such, in view of the bar contained in section 497 Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the grant of bail in offences exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment, the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail.

After hearing both the parties and a perusal of the record, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the case against the petitioner is based upon the disclosure statement and the last scene theory. So far as evidence brought on record is concerned, it is not the case where all the material witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story. This Court no doubt can look in to evidence but cannot appreciate the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The contentions raised by the petitioner that there is in fact no last scene theory and the disclosure does not connect the petitioner with any crime, pertain to the merits and cannot be considered at this stage. A number of other witnesses are yet to be examined and they include the material witnesses as well with regard to the proceeding of the deceased to the house of the petitioner and stated that “The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. More so, the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to bail on ground of delay is also not sustainable in view of the fact that it is not the case where the prosecution has not led any evidence, rather the prosecution has examined number of witnesses. Otherwise also, due to corona pandemic all the Courts functioned in restricted manner for the last more than one year. But still the trial court can be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj