Category Archives: Blog

An attempt is possible even when the accused is unsuccessful in committing the principal offence. Similarly, if the attempt to commit a crime is accomplished, then the crime stands committed for all intents and purposes as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through the learned bench led by Justice Surya Kant in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mahendra Alias Golu (Criminal Appeal No. 1827 Of 2011)

The brief facts of the case are that, about a fortnight prior to the date of registration of FIR, the two victim prosecutrix, aged about 9 years and 8 years respectively, were playing in the street located near the respondent’s house. The respondent, called them with the inducement that he will give them money. Both the victims went along with the respondent to his house which was totally empty at the time of the incident. Taking advantage of this opportune moment, the respondent thereafter undressed both the victims and made her lie down and started rubbing his genitals against the genitals of the both the victims. Both the minor victims, felt scared and shocked because of which they allegedly started crying. The respondent silenced them by threatening them with physical harm. However, after a few days, both victims revealed the details of the incident. After a lapse of 15 days of the incident, the present FIR was thus filed. The Trial Court convicted the respondent for the offence under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC though acquitted him under Sections 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and fine of Rs. 5000/­. The respondent laid challenge to his conviction before the Principal Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court and vide impugned judgment, the High Court modified the judgment of the Trial Court; set aside the conviction under Section 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 IPC and convicted the respondent under Section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 2 years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/­. The aforestated modification and resultant reduction in sentence are assailed before us at the instance of the Prosecution.

After the perusal of the facts and arguments by the respective parties, the Hon’ble Court held, “In our considered opinion, the act of the respondent of luring the minor girls, taking them inside the room, closing the doors and taking the victims to a room with the motive of carnal knowledge, was the end of ‘preparation’ to commit the offence. Since the acts of the respondent exceeded the stage beyond preparation and preceded the actual penetration, the Trial Court rightly held him guilty of attempting to commit rape as punishable within the ambit and scope of Section 511 read with Section 375 IPC as it stood in force at the time of occurrence. We, thus, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Trial Court. The respondent is directed to surrender within two weeks and serve the remainder of his sentence as awarded by the Trial Court.”

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Vandana Ragwani

Petitioner was alleged of hiding their already existing marriage of his and had entered into a false relationship with the informant. He had also married the informant and threatened her on knowing about the truth. The Court denied the pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and said that the case may be considered for bail matter on its own merits in the future. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Akhilesh Singh v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 40409 of 2020]. 

The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest under Section 420, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged against the petitioner that the informant had earlier married a man and had 2 children from him. After whose death they came to know each other on Facebook and had fallen in love. It was further stated that they had a physical relationship with each other. The informant added that they were in touch with each other and that the petitioner had put the vermilion on her forehead as well. Later on, the informant came to know that he was already married to someone else and when she raised her voice she was threatened.

The petitioner submitted that the informant who had pursued the relationship with the petitioner and further that she was fully aware of the circumstances. It was submitted that because there may have been some contact between the parties but that was purely consensual and the informant was trying to extract money from the petitioner due to which she has lodged this false case.

Learned counsel for the informant submitted that she being the mother of two children, could not have entered into such relationship as it is against natural human behavior and further that the petitioner did not need to put vermilion on her forehead in a temple as that was what had made her confident that the petitioner had married her.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.” The Pre-Arrest Bail was denied by the Court and the Petition was dismissed.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

The petitioner was alleged of selling the SIM  card and blackmailing the Circle Officer demanding 10 Lakh rupees failing to which he shall kill him. The pre-arrest bail was denied to him by the Court. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Samiullah  v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 29784 of 2021]. 

The facts of the case were that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the Case, instituted under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the petitioner has sold the SIM card from which the informant was called who is in the position of the Circle Officer and demanded 10 Lakhs Rupees failing to which he was threatened to be eliminated.

The Petitioner submitted that he had no connection with this case and the SIM card doesn’t belong to him and had no occurrence for this role. He has only sold the SIM to the co-accused and he has no criminal antecedent.

It was noted that the SIM card was sold to the co-accused by the petitioner and that the same has been sold by forging and fabricating the documents that were required to be submitted at the time of purchase. This act is patently illegal and thus he cannot plead innocence and the act was not in conformity to law and otherwise, also there arises no situation or occasion for a genuine person to commit such act of forging and fabricating the documents portraying incorrect identity.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.” The Court further added,”… in view of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that if the petitioner appears before the Court below and prays for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present order.” The petition was hence dismissed.

Click Here To Read The Judgment

Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the appointment of Sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Sections 11(5) and 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. and the same issue was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT, in the matter SIVANSSH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD  V.  ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANIZATION dealt with an issue mentioned above.

The petitioner was a person who was running a company whereas, The company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 claims to be engaged in construction-related activities including construction of various industrial, institutional, commercial as well as residential projects in India.

The issue was that according to the petitioner, in December 2015, the respondent invited bids for the development of a Residential Complex to be spread over an area of 3.57 acres (approx.) for construction of 220 dwelling units to be constructed in 5 Towers located at Sector-6A, Vrindavan Awas Yojna, Lucknow, to which petitioner had submitted its bid, which was accepted by the respondent vide Acceptance Letter dated 02.06.2016. The total value of the awarded project according to the petitioner was Rs.100,59,48,977.35.

The petitioner was instructed to commence the work at the Site on the even date with a Completion Period of 30 months expiring on 27.12.2018. However, since the respondent failed to hand over the site to the petitioner, a Revised Work Order dated 19.06.2017 was issued by the respondent, for the petitioner to commence the project on 12.08.2016 with the Completion Date as 11.02.2019.

It was also mentioned that because of the various delays and defaults on the part of the respondent, the contract completion was delayed and consequently, the petitioner had to seek an extension of the project with the Completion Period on various occasions up to 31.05.2019 and by then, petitioner completed the ARB.P. 830/2021 work, It was submitted that since the respondent had been unwilling to release the longstanding dues of the Petitioner, Petitioner invoked arbitration vide letter dated 22.06.2021 under Clause 174 of GCC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointment of Mr S.S. ARB.P. 830/2021 Bansal as Arbitrator violates dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC &Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. 2019 SCC Online SC 1517. Learned counsel has disputed the claims raised in the present petition, however, the existence of an arbitration clause is not disputed. And also they referred to the case which was held by The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC &Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. 2019 SCC Online SC 1517.

The court perused the facts and argument’s presented, it thought that- “Because of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, Mr Justice (Retd.) B.D.Ahmed is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The arbitration shall be conducted under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration. With aforesaid directions, the present petition is accordingly disposed of”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira BS

Reading of Section 140 makes it clear that no fault liability is cast on the owner of the vehicle and not directly on the insurer. This was held in the judgment passed by a single judge bench comprising of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd V. Feroz-ud-Din & anr [IA No. 01/2018], dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doda in the four appeals.

Claimants are grandparents of the deceased whose son was driving the said vehicle on the fateful day and they have filed four claim petitions against DM, National Insurance Company Limited & others for compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1998.

Appellant-Insurance Company objected to the claim petitions on the ground that the claim petitions are not maintainable because insurer can only indemnify the insured, who died and in the absence of his legal heirs arrayed as party.  Learned Tribunal, while considering the application under Section 140 of the MV Act, found that as the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant company, as such, the respondent/insurer is under legal obligation to indemnify the owner and the Tribunal has awarded interim award of Rs. 50,000/- in each claim petitions in favour of the respondents-claimants.

It is argued that the appellant cannot be made liable to pay compensation under no fault liability in the absence of the insured because the Insurance Policy, contract is to indemnify the insured against the third party liability.

Counsel for the appellant while elaborating on the contention, relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sunita Rathi, 1998.

The appeals filed by the Insurance Company involve only a short point relating to its liability under the policy of insurance issued subsequent to the accident, even though it was issued some time later on the same day. In the judgement they relied the High Court stated that, without assigning any reason, has simply assumed that the owner of the vehicle was not liable and that the insurer alone was liable in the present case. This conclusion, reached by the High Court, is clearly erroneous. The liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. There is, thus, a basic fallacy in the conclusion reached by the High Court on this point.

After hearing both sides, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition and held that Appellant-company is directed to deposit the amount of award passed in all the claim petitions within a period of one month from today, failing which, same will be payable with 12% interest per annum.

Click here to view judgement

Judgement reviewed by – Vaishnavi Raman