Blog Archives - Page 366 of 1699

4 Jul

Allahabad High Court holds that after the first plea is rejected in changed circumstances, the second plea under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance is maintainable; the Res Judicata principle does not apply.

Prime Legal

Blog #allahabadhighcourt#crpc#criminallaw#crime#judgement

Title: Shyam Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another

Decided on: 23rd May, 2023

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 22529 of 2008

CORAM: HON’BLE Mrs. JYOTSNA SHARMA J.

Introduction.

The Allahabad High Court has noted that if there are changes in the circumstances entitling a person to be a claimant under the stated provision, a second application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC can stand, following the denial of the first application.

Analysis.

The Court was of the opinion that if the right to submit an application for maintenance is foreclosed, it will undermine the whole purpose of section 125 CrPC. It emphasized that the obligation to maintain under section 125 CrPC is a continuing obligation.

The Court proceeded to note that the main purpose of the legal actions brought under Section 125 CrPC is to avoid being impoverished and homeless and that this provision tries to provide immediate relief to the society’s members.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Varada Hawaldar

click to view judgement

4 Jul

Patna High Court passed the final order directing the Circle Officer to conclude the proceedings of encroachment case within six weeks

Prime Legal

Blog #patnahighcourt

TITLE: Singasan Sharma v. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Decided on: 03-07-2023

CWJC No: 18114/2022

Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

Facts of the case:

The petitioner in the present writ petition prays to direct the Circle Officer, Mainatand, District-West Champaran, to expedite the proceedings of the pending Encroachment Case No. 14 of 2020-21.

The learned counsel appearing for the State, submits that in case, the aforesaid encroachment proceedings are still pending, the same would definitely be concluded within a fixed time frame.

Analysis of the court and decision:

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Circle Officer, Mainatand, District-West Champaran, is directed to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid Encroachment Case No. 14 of 2020-21, by passing the final order under Section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, after hearing the affected parties and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

The writ petition stands disposed off on the aforesaid terms.

Written by- Meghana D

Click to view judgement

4 Jul

The Gujarat High Court granted the petitioners’ request to quash the FIR and charge sheet, as the allegations of copyright and trademark infringement were deemed baseless and not applicable.

Prime Legal

Blog #firstappeal, #Gujarathighcourt

Case- Atulbhai Rasikbhai Dudhwala vs State Of Gujarat (R/SCR.A/693/2014)
Decided on: 27^th June 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt
Introduction

In this case, the petitioners filed a petition seeking multiple reliefs, including the quashing of an FIR and charge sheet related to allegations of copyright and trademark infringement. The petitioners’ counsel argued that the allegations in the FIR were baseless and did not fall under the purview of the Copyright Act or the Trade Marks Act.

Facts of the Case

According to the councel, the complainant, the first informant, needed the authorisation or assignment to carry out procedures related to copyright infringement. The allegations were that the petitioners were selling duplicate spare parts of the Hyundai Company. The counsel argued that the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act did not apply to the sale of automobile goods and that the provisions of these acts were not applicable in this case.

Furthermore, the counsel contended that the first informant had not provided any evidence to prove that he was authorised to file the complaint on behalf of the Hyundai Company. They argued that the FIR abused the court’s process and should be quashed, citing a previous judgment that they believed applied to the present case.

The respondent’s counsel, representing the state, agreed that the allegations in the FIR did not relate to items covered under the Copyright Act. However, they argued that the FIR was filed for offences under specific sections of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act.

Judgement

After considering the submissions and examining the FIR, the court found that the allegations did not fall within the scope of the Copyright Act, as the spare parts in question were not considered artistic works. The court also noted that the FIR did not establish the complainant’s capacity to claim rights under the Copyright Act or the Trade Marks Act.

Based on these findings, the court concluded that no prima facie case was made out under the relevant sections of the acts. They deemed continuing the criminal proceedings to abuse the court’s process and quashed the FIR, charge sheet, and all related proceedings.

In summary, the court granted the petitioners’ request to quash the FIR and charge sheet, as the allegations of copyright and trademark infringement were deemed baseless and not applicable. The court found that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the court and law, and therefore, the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aadit Shah

Click Here to View Judgement

4 Jul

Pregnant women’s mental and physical health has been given the top priority in hapless circumstances by Haryana High court

Prime Legal

blog #abortion, #nonconsenual

TITLE: N v State of Haryana and Others

Decided On-: 19.06.2023

CWP-13409-2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Vikram Aggarwal

INTRODUCTION –

An individual’s willingness is extremely important, and anything done against that individual will undoubtedly result in an unlawful demand or a soul living without purpose.

FACTS OF THE CASE

On the basis of the petitioner’s maternal uncle’s statement, FIR No. 19 was registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, Karnal on 28.01.2023 under Section 346 IPC. The complainant stated that his niece, the current petitioner, had been missing from home since the evening of January 27, 2023. He was suspicious of respondent No. 5. On April 9, 2023, the petitioner was apprehended in Rajpura, District Patiala.On 10.04.2023, her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., in which she stated that respondent No. 5 had kidnapped her and had forcible physical relations with her. Section 346 was repealed, and Sections 343, 376 (2) (n), 506, and 365 IPC were added in its place.The petitioner became pregnant and decided she did not want to keep the pregnancy. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2020, prescribes a 24-week limit for medical termination of pregnancy.For specific groups of women, including rape victims. The respondent No. 5 has been served with a court notice. Because the case at hand is very sensitive and requires immediate consideration, the respondent No. 2 is directed to comply with these directions within four days of today, and thereafter, he shall submit a detailed report on affidavit, before this Court on the subsequent date of hearing, making disclosures to the above effect, and the said report shall also carry disclosure qua the allegations, as leveled by the prosecutor.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The Hon’ble court has considered the submissions made by both parties with the respective proceeding. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner has leveled his case relying on previous rulings that I have been in favor of his client’s situation. In a precedent case, the hon’ble apex court has come to the conclusion that the “provisions do not require a narrow interpretation.In the context of abortion, the right to dignity entails recognising the competence and authority of every woman to take reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Although human dignity inheres in every individual, it is susceptible to violation by external conditions and treatment imposed by the state. The right of every woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the state is central to the idea of human dignity”

In the light of satisfactory rulings, This hon’ble court has come an decision

That the petitioner’s case is covered by the provisions of Section 3 of the MTP Act, and in light of the Medical Board’s report, the present petition is dismissed with a direction to the State of Haryana/Medical Superintendent, PGIMS, Rohtak to make immediate arrangements for the medical termination of the petitioner’s pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of the MTP Act. It goes without saying that there should be no delay in carrying out the necessary formalities, and that there is no risk to the petitioner’s life as a result of unwarranted delays or otherwise.

Written by- Steffi Desousa Click to view judgement

4 Jul

The Punjab High Court grants conditional anticipatory bail under the accusation of Sections 406, 498-A IPC.

Prime Legal

blog #Anticipatorybail, #obscene

TITLE – Vaneet Sachdeva and Diksha v State of Punjab

Decided On-: May 12, 2023

CRM-M-10868-2023 and CRM-M-20326-2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Gurbir Singh

INTRODUCTION –

Anticipatory bail was granted in accordance with the law and the terms laid down by the Hon’ble Court. Failure to cooperate by the respected party will result in consequences.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The FIR in question was filed at the request of one Yashika Sachdeva against her husband Vaneet Sachdeva (petitioner in CRM-M10868-2023) and Diksha 11.05.2022, during which the complainant received calls and messages on her mobile phone. She was startled to discover her obscene videos and objectionable photographs with her husband Vaneet Sachdeva on her Instagram ID by co-accused Diksha, which her husband had created by deceiving her with the intent of blackmailing her from the start. When she spoke to the petitioner Diksha, she began hurling insults and threatening her. Previously, the complainant had filed a police complaint against her husband and inlaws, and as a result, the police registered a FIR under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Women Cell, Ludhiana. The complainant also stated in the complaint that Diksha was having illicit relations with her husband Vaneet Sachdeva and that her husband had given indecent videos and photographs of the complainant to Diksha, who was blackmailing and threatening her.

The Inquiry Officer concluded that the aforementioned video was created by the complainant herself, but after the FIR was filed, the State reversed its position. Learned counsel for petitioner Vaneet Sachdeva also contended that the petitioners did not publish or transmit any such video to anyone. Learned counsel for petitioner Diksha has argued that the aforementioned video was neither published nor transmitted by her, and that, according to the prosecution’s version, it was in the mobile phone of Vaneet Sachdeva, from which it was sent. It is also alleged that the offence is heinous. As a result, the petitioners are not eligible for anticipatory bail.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Notices were served on the petitioners in accordance with Section 41-A of the Cr. P.C., but they did not participate in the investigation. However, there is no proof that they were properly served. Because the allegations against petitioner Vaneet Sachdeva are that he prepared the obscene video and photographs of the complainant (his wife), and said video and photographs were circulated to the complainant’s phone by petitioner Diksha, and it is not the prosecution’s case that the said photographs or video were circulated amongst the general public, petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.The Hon’ble Court has imposed a few conditions on both the petitioner and the ongoing investigation. If the petitioners do not cooperate or violate this order, the prosecution is free to file an application to cancel the petitioners’ bail.

Both petitions are dismissed in the manner stated above.

Written by- Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

1 … 364 365 366 367 368 … 1,699