0

The Supreme Court of India Paves Way for Dignified Livelihoods: Imposes Stringent Measures to Abolish Manual Scavenging Menace

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , ,

Case Title – Safai Karamchari Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number – W.P. No. 17380 of 2017; 31345 of 2014 and W.P. (MD) No. 24243 of 2017

Dated on – 29th April,2024

Quorum – The Hon’ble Chief Justice and Justice J. Sathya Narayana Prasad

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Appellants instituted a Writ Petition seeking for the directions against the Respondents to cease the practice of manual scavenging, take Criminal Legal actions against the Respondents in the cases of violations, compensate fully the family of the victims who have attained death due to the manual scavenging, use machines for cleaning the septic tanks, and rigorously implement the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. Even after assurances from the authorities and the prevailing of the laws prohibiting the manual scavenging, the practice continues due to the entrenched social norms, caste-based discrimination, and systematic failures. The Appellants, in the present case, asserted that the practice of manual scavenging is a staid violation of human rights, eternalizing the cycle of tyranny and discrimination faced by the individuals engaged in this hazardous profession.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented for the extermination of manual scavenging and the rehabilitation of scavengers to more decorous job opportunities within Tamil Nadu.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that even after the applicability of laws like the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, manual scavenging persists due to systematic failures and social discrimination.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that they have taken all the requisite steps to prevent manual scavenging, inclusive of the machines for clearing the septic tanks and compensating for death.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the accidents and the deaths concerning the manual scavenging occurred due to the shortcoming of the private contractors and that they have taken all the requisite actions as per law.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 2(j) of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 prescribes the Definition of the term “Manual Scavengers”
  2. Article 23 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Prohibition of human trafficking and forced labour, including begging and similar forms of forced labour
  3. Article 23 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Abolishment of Untouchability
  4. Article 21 of the Constitution of India prescribes the prescribes the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case whirls around whether the constant and unending practice of the manual scavenging violates the human rights as well as fundamental rights of the people engaged in the conduction of the manual scavenging?
  2. Whether the preventive measures taken by the Respondents are decent to exterminate the manual scavenging and ensure the welfare of the people engaged in the conduction of the manual scavenging?
  3. Whether the added instructions from the court are mandatory to address the issues efficiently

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Safai Karamchari Andolan Vs. Union of India & Ors., acknowledged the tenacious issue of manual scavenging and the impact of it on the fundamental rights as well as the human rights and dignity of the individuals involved in the job of manual scavenging. The court in this case observed the inadequate existing laws and measures to annihilate the manual scavenging efficaciously. The court, in this present case, stressed on the need for the multifarious varied approaches, inclusive of the legislative reforms, social awareness campaigns, and alternative opportunities for the purpose of a better livelihood, to tackle with the issue effectively. The court took into consideration the contentions of both the parties, i.e., the Appellants and the Respondents, and issued a series of guidelines and directions to the Respondent authorities, inclusive of:

  • Taking strict actions against those engaging in manual scavenging
  • Providing shielding equipment and mechanizing sewer cleaning
  • Ameliorating compensation for deaths and injuries concerning the manual scavenging
  • Framing schemes for benevolent appointments and rehabilitation of the manual scavengers
  • Assuring stringent enactment of the pertinent laws and enervating the workers about the legislative provisions and rehabilitation schemes

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

State Authorities’ Assertion of Ownership, Designation of Disputed Plot as Pond Land Leads to Intervention in Appellant’s Possession: Supreme Court

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

Case Title – Sharif Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 363

Case Number – CRL. APPEAL Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 1074 of 2017 with CRL. APPEAL Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 9482 of 2021 and CRL. APPEAL Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 5419 of 2022

Dated on – 1st May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Sanjiv Khanna

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Sharif Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 363, revolves around a dispute of the property regarding a Property No. 80-A, covering 23.072 Sq.ft., part of Khasra No. 1016/647 and 645, situated in Chandrawali/Shahdara, now in Abadi, at Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The Appellant No. 2, Sharif Ahmad, and the Appellant No. 3, Anwar Ahmad (now deceased), bought a part of the property on behalf of their partnership firm Dream Land & Co. Appellant No.1, Vakil Ahmad (also deceased), obtained another portion individually. The Respondent No.2, Mohd. Iqbal, instituted FIR No. 108/2016 against the Appellants under Section 420, 406, and 506 of the India Penal Code, 1860, alleging failure to register the property and refund the advance payment. The FIR was challenged by the Appellants and chargesheet through various legal avenues, including petitions before the Allahabad High Court seeking for the quashing of the proceedings were framed. The chargesheet alleged breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but did not detect an offense under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court, in this present case, inspected the legal provisions related to the criminal offenses mentioned in the chargesheet, inclusive of the Section 406, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, accentuating the need of fulfilling the essentials elements of each offense. The court, in this present case, allowed the appeal arising from the SLP (Crl.) No. 1074/2017, quashing the criminal proceedings against the Appellants. Moreover, the appeal arising from the SLP (Crl.) No. 5419/2022 was allowed, granting anticipatory bail to the Appellants Imran and Kamaluddin. The court, in this case, stated the concerns over the misuse of criminal proceedings to settle the Civil disputes and reprimanded against the issuance of the non-bailable warrants without decent vindication. The court, in this case, ordered for the re-examination of the case against the Manager Singh taking into consideration the examination made, accentuating the need for fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the chargesheet instituted against them was sham and bogus and was lacking proper investigation and that the chargesheet failed to establish any offense against them under Sections 405, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that concerning the offenses under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there was no involvement of the entrustment of property and that mere transactions like sale or exchange of property do not compose entrustment, and thus, the charge of criminal breach of trust was not applicable.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that regarding the offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at the time of the agreement, there was no evidence of dishonest or fraudulent inducement and that there was absence of essential element of fraudulent intent, hence, depicting the charge of cheating inapplicable.
  4. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that concerning the offenses under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, there was no sufficient evidence to prove the intention of the Appellants to intimidate the complainant and that they alleged threats were no supported by reliable evidences.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellants had committed the offense of breach of trust by not refunding the solemn money received for the sale of property and that there was refusal on the part of the Appellants to register the property or return the money regardless of repeated plea, hence the violation of the Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellants had dishonestly induced the complainant into the transaction related to the property by making false pledges and that the Appellants had received the solemn money but there was a failure on the part of the Appellants to fulfil their obligations, committing the offense of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that concerning the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, evidence regarding threats made by the Appellants to the complainants and his family was presented by the Respondent and that the actions of the Appellants inculcated fear and amounted to criminal intimidation.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
  2. Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust
  3. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Intimidation
  4. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy
  5. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Voluntarily Causing Hurt
  6. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
  7. Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Attempt to commit culpable homicide
  8. Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the Punishment for Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
  9. Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prescribes the power of the police officer to investigate the cognizable case
  10. Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, prescribes that the Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case whirls around whether the chargesheet instituted against the Appellants under Sections 405, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was valid?
  2. Whether the actions of the Appellants amounted to Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, and Criminal Intimidation as defined under the relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
  3. Whether the evidences exhibited by both the parties to constitute the conduction of the offenses and the accountability of the Appellants copious?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Sharif Ahmad & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2024 INSC 363, scrupulously critiqued the contents of the chargesheet and discovered that it was lacking satisfactory evidence to prove the alleged offenses. The pivotal analysis of the chargesheet spotlighted the inadequacy in the case of the Prosecution, presaging the failure in establishment of a prima facie case against the Appellants. The court, in the present case, on the basis of the legal analysis and assessment of the facts, annulled the charges framed against the Appellants and quashed the criminal proceedings against the Appellants, stating the absence of the ample evidence to proceed with the case. The court, in this case, allowed the anticipatory bail for certain Appellants, taking into consideration the situations of the case and the principles of justice. The court warned against the misuse of the criminal proceedings for civil disputes and issued the directives for fair and justifiable handling of the case against Manager Singh, upholding the integrity of the legal process.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

Supreme Court Affirms Land Ownership Rights Bihar Land Dispute Case, Rejects State Claim

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , ,

Case Title – Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360

Case Number – 1627 of 2016

Dated on – 1st May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360, the Appellant, Ram Balak, instituted a suit for possession and confirmation of the possession over 0.32 decimal of land in the Village of Kishanpur, Bihar. Initially, the land belonged to Rambit Kuwer, who through a lease deed in 1341 fasli settled it in favour of Makhan Singh. Until his death, Makhan Singh continued in possession of the land, subsequently his adopted son, Ram Balak Singh, inherited the said land. During the process of consolidation under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the name of Ram Balak, the adopted son of Makhan Singh was recorded as the owner of the said land by the Consolidation officer. However, thereafter, the State Authorities claimed whole of the land, inclusive of the suit land, as pond land and intervened with the possession of the Appellant. The Appellant instituted a suit against the State of Bihar and another party seeking the declaration of his title over the land and the confirmation of his possession. The trial court ruled the suit in favour of the Appellant, but the decision of the court was reversed by the First Appellate Court and asserted by the High Court. The Appellant in this case, appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Appellate Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that he and his predecessor-in-interest have been in possession of the land since it was resolved in their favour.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Consolidation Officer had acknowledged his rights over the land and directed his name to be recorded in the records of rights, which should be final and conclusive.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellate Courts erred in revising the decree of the Trial Court, as he had furnished sufficient evidence to establish his rights and possession over the land.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the whole of the land was pond land and could not be settled in favour of the Appellant.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the suit was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956, which bars the civil matters falling under the Jurisdiction of the Consolidation Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act, 1956 prescribes the decision of matters relating to charges and transactions affecting rights or interest recorded in revised records
  2. Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956 prescribes the Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
  3. Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by court
  4. Article 32 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Right to constitutional remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen
  5. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of the High Courts to issue certain writs
  6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of Superintendence over all courts by the High Court

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the order of the Consolidation Officer acknowledging the title of the Appellant over the land can be ignored or reversed by the Civil Court?
  2. Whether the suit instituted by the Appellant is barred under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360, analysed the provisions of the Consolidation Act, 1956, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in the matters related to land consolidation. The court, in this present case, observed that the order of the Consolidation Officer recognizing the rights of the Appellant over the land had attained finality and could not be ignored or reversed by the Civil Court. The Court, in this present case, held that the suit instituted by the Appellant was not challenging any decision of the Consolidation Court but seeking the recognition of his rights over the land. Thus, the court concluded that the suit instituted by the Appellant was not barred under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act,1956. The court allowed the appeal of the Appellant, set aside the judgments of the Appellate Courts and restored the decree of the Trial Court in favour of the Appellant.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

NIACL Triumphs: Supreme Court Validates Insurance Claim Rejection in Tata Steel Case

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

Case Title – New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. 2024 INSC 356

Case Number – SLP (C) No. 10001 of 2009, C.A. No. 5242-5243 of 2009

Dated on – 30th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice K. V. Viswanathan

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. 2024 INSC 356, the insured had an insurance policy with the New India Assurance Company Limited (NIACL) covering their complete machinery of the mill, paying a premium of Rupees 62,09,655/-. On the 12th of December,1998, the 20 Hi Cold Rolling Mill was destroyed by a fire causing them a claimed loss of Rupees 35.08 Crores. NIACL was informed instantly, and surveyors were appointed. On dated 29th January,1999, a claim of Rupees 35.08 Crores was filed, based on the replacement quotations. On dated 24th March, 1999, NIACL transferred Rupees 4,92,80,905/. Rupees 29.60 crores were spent by the insured on a new 6 Hi Cold Rolling Mill to restart the operations. The insured agreed to accept an amount of Rupees 20.9 crores as a final settlement to avoid any detains. The NIACL further did not release the remaining balance resulting in the institution of a consumer complaint Case No. 233 of 2000 on the dated 30th May, 2000. NIACL appointed surveyors instantly post the fire and made interim payments on the basis of their reports. The final Joint Surveyors’ Report assessed the losses at Rupees 19.55 Crores and Rupees 13.51 crores for replacement and depreciation respectively on dated 11th December,2001. NIACL claimed that the insured informed them about the new 6 Hi Cold Mill on dated 27th March, 2002 which was in contrast to the claim for the reestablishment of the 20 Hi Cold Rolling Mill. The Claim was duly settled by the NIACL at Rupees 7.88 Crores, citing that the replacement mill was of lesser capacity.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the subsistence of the reestablishment value clause in the insurance policy, which stated that the method of the indemnity should be the cost of replacing or reestablishing the damaged property with a property of the same type, but not superior or more comprehensive than the insured property when new and that this clause compels the insured to reestablish the damaged property within 12 months or within an extended period, or else, the clause stands futile.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the insured failed to take requisite steps for the reestablishment despite abundant opportunities provided by the NIACL and that the delay on the part of the insured in providing necessary information and taking action for the purpose of reestablishment. They contended that the delay on the part of the insured in providing requisite information and taking actions related to reestablishment. Further, the damaged property’s repair was delayed.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) faultily neglected their affidavit vindicating the calculation of depreciation at 60% and that there were no standard guidelines for depreciation calculation and that their conduct, including seeking a revised calculation from the surveyors, was apt as per the situation.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that existence of the reestablishment value clause in the policy document issued by the NIACL, asserting it was never received by them and that the Clause 9 of the policy conditions, which pertains to reestablishment, should be read in combination with any such clause.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the clause 9 of the policy applies when reestablished or repair is not possible, as assessed by the surveyor and cited the judgment in the Oswal Plastic Industries.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the depreciation should be calculated either on the sum insured or on the cost of a new locally sourced 20 Hi Cold Rolling Machine and that the NIACL failed to provide competent reasons for directing apart from the recommendation of the surveyors for 32% depreciation and that the doctrine of contra proferentem should be applied in their favour. 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 64 UM (2) of the Insurance Act, 1938 prescribes that the surveyors and loss assessors must follow the code of conduct for their duties, responsibilities, and other professional requirements as specified by the regulations made under the Act.
  2. Regulation 9(3) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders’ Interest) Regulations, 2002 prescribes that if an insurer receives an incomplete survey report, they must ask the surveyor to provide an additional report on specific issues. The insurer must also notify the insured about the delay that may occur in the claim assessment if the insured doesn’t provide all the required information or doesn’t cooperate with the surveyor.

ISSUES 

  1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the claim of Tata Steel for the loss incurred due to the circumstance of the fire incident covered under the insurance policy with NIACL?
  2. Whether the NIACL rightfully rejected the claim on the basis of the exclusion and conditions of the policy?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. 2024 INSC 356, scrutinized the terms and conditions of the insurance policy between the Appellant and the Respondent to determine the coverage for the loss incurred. The court inspected the specified provisions, exclusions, and conditions of the insurance policy to ascertain if the Respondents’ claim came under the ambit of coverage. The court took into consideration any evidence or documentations provided by both the parties concerning the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The court discovered that the claim of the Tata Steel comes within the ambit of policy exclusion or conditions, upholding the rejection of the claim of NIACL. The judgment of the court provided a conclusive resolution to the dispute between the parties regarding the insurance coverage for the loss from the fire incident.

The court thus in this case, allowed the appeal of the NIACL and set aside the order of the NCDRC. The court observed that the claim was rightly settled by the NIACL letter dated 3rd January,2003 which determined the loss amount payable at Rupees 7.88 crores after applying 60% depreciation. The court dismissed the appeal instituted by the Insured-Respondent.

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

Dowry harassment case revived by Supreme Court, challenging the jurisdiction ruling of the High Court

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

Case Title – Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 INSC 357

Case Number – Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 10668 of 2022

Dated on – 30th April,2024

Quorum – Justice Aravind Kumar

FACTS OF THE CASE 

In the case of Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 INSC 357, the Appellant and the Respondent No.8 were espoused twice on the date 5th of October,2018 in Kolkata and on date 18th of January, 2019 in Jamshedpur. The accusations in this present case are inclusive of abuse by the in-laws concerning the dowry demands, abuse, and physical assault. The Appellant in the present case, lodged a complaint on the 4th of March,2021 which resulted in an institution of an FIR No. 68 of 2021 against Respondent 3 to 8. The Respondents did not reply to the investigation notices resulting in the issuance of Non-Bailable warrants. The Respondents 3 and 4, on date 17th of June, 2021, were arrested with others filing the applications for bail. The Appellant in this case, challenged the order dated 16th of June, 2022 of the Jharkhand High Court in Cr.M. P No. 1291 of 2021, which quashed the proceedings against the Respondent No. 3 to 8 for the offenses under Sections 323, 498A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with the Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act), and the Non-Bailable warrants were issued against them.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the it was an error on the part of the High Court in quashing the proceedings on the basis of non-compliance with the Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the complaint perspicuously reveals the offenses and that the High Court should not have intervened with the process of investigation
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the High Court faultily considered the territorial jurisdiction on the basic of the residency, ignoring the facts related to the jurisdiction.
  4. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the application of the High Court of principles from the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh was erroneous.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the High Court justifiably quashed the proceedings.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case cited the reason for quashing the proceedings as non-compliance with Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
  3. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case cited the reason for quashing the proceedings as the lack of jurisdiction as per the allegations.
  4. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case cited the reason for quashing the proceedings as the generic and omnibus nature of allegations against them.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
  2. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
  3. Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Intentional insult with intend to provoke breach of peace
  4. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Criminal Intimidation
  5. Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prescribes the Penalty for giving or taking dowry
  6. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 prescribes the Penalty for demanding dowry
  7. Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 states the Notice of appearance before police officer

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Priyanka Jaiswal Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2024 INSC 357, stated that the court cannot conduct a mini trial or entertain evidence at the stage of quashing the proceedings. The court stated that the complaints contain the specified accusations against the Respondent 3,4, and 8 and thus, quashing was erred. The court regarding the territorial jurisdiction, stated that the residency of the Appellant at Jamshedpur was sufficient for the purpose of jurisdiction. The court in this case ruled that the accusations in the complaint must disclose a prima facie case against the accused and that the lack of specific details in the complaint doesn’t justify the quashing proceedings. The court in this case, set aside the quashing the proceedings against the Respondent No. 3,4, and 8 and upheld the Respondents 3,4, and 8 due to the lack in specific accusations. The court achieved for record-keeping purpose, any pending applications (if any).

“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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

1 2 3 … 7