0

The High Court of Delhi Grants Parole for Appellant’s Engagement and Marriage Ceremonies with Specified Conditions.

Blog, Delhi High Court , , ,

Case Title – Rahul Dev Vs. State GNCTD of Delhi

Case Number – Writ Petition (Crl.). 1215/2024

Dated on – 26th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Amit Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

In The Case of Rahul Dev Vs. State GNCTD of Delhi, the Appellant in the said case, Rahul Dev, has filed a petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973.  The Appellant in this case, sought for parole for a period of four weeks for the purpose of his engagement and marriage ceremony. The engagement was scheduled for the date 27th of April, 2024 and the marriage ceremony to be held on 30th of April,2024. Both the engagement as well as the marriage to be held at Arya Samaj Mandir, 74B, Khanna Market, Tis Hazari, Delhi- 110054. The Superintendent of the Prison, Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi, provided a nominal roll dated 24th of April, 2024, signifying that the petitioner has been in custody for 14 years, 6 months, and 25 days (with remission). A status report from the Central Jail No. 14, Mandoli, Delhi, shows that the Appellant in the present case priorly availed parole from the 29th of January, 2024 to the 5th of March, 2024, as granted by a coordinate bench of the court. The Appellant in the present case, Rahul Dev, surrendered on the 6th of March, 2024.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the Appellant to be granted parole for the purpose of his engagement as well as marriage.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the ceremonies of engagement as well as marriage are scheduled on the dated 27th of April,2024 and 30th of April, 2024 respectively, which are the significant events of the Appellant’s life.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel in the said case, has complied with the essential procedures and furnished the court with all the relevant documents supporting their plea for parole.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The Respondent, through their counsel in the said case, did not contradict the grant of parole to the Appellant but requested the court for an imposition of appropriate conditions for the release of the Appellant.
  2. The Respondent, through their counsel in the said case, acknowledged the right of the Appellant to attend his engagement as well as marriage but also emphasized on the importance of ensuring the safety of the public and the compliance of the Appellant with the law during the parole period.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India authorizes the High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose that the High Courts deem fit.
  2. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 grants the High Courts with inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or else secure the ends of justice.

ISSUES

  1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the Appellant should be granted with the parole for his engagement as well as his marriage ceremonies?
  2. Whether the conditions should be imposed on the release of the Appellant to ensure the compliance as well as the safety of the public?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Rahul Dev Vs. State GNCTD of Delhi, after taking into consideration the contentions of both the Appellant as well as the Respondent and examining the facts and circumstances of the case, found merit in the case of the Appellant and their plea for parole for the purpose of attending his engagement as well as the marriage ceremony. The court, in this present case, observed that the engagement as well as the marriage ceremony, are the significant events of the Appellant’s life. However, the court also emphasized on the need to balance the rights of the Appellant with the safety of the public and the compliance of law. The court, accordingly, granted the parole to the Appellant for a period of two weeks from the date of his release, subject to certain conditions to ensure the compliance with law of the Appellant and the safety of the public. The court stated the conditions as furnishing a personal bond, providing the details of the residence and the local police station, reporting to the SHO once a week, furnishing a contact number, and surrendering promptly at the end of the parole period. The court ordered the instant release of the Appellant upon compliance with the stated conditions. The court directed the uploading of the Court Order on the website of the court and sending a copy of the same to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary compliance.

“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

“The High Court of Karnataka Grants Anticipatory Bail to Rape Accused Due to Lack of Evidence of Coercion or False Promises in Allegations.”

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , , , , , , ,

Case Title – Varun Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka

Case Number – Criminal Petition No. 2020/2024

Dated on – 18th April 2024

Quorum – Justice Rajendra Badamikar

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Varun Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka, the Appellant, Varun Kumar, instituted a petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in apprehension of his arrest in Crime No. 50/2024 of the Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru. The present case concerns the allegations of offenses under Section 376(3) of the and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 4(2), 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Complainant in the present case (further referred herein as “Victim”) claimed that the Appellant started profaning her on Instagram, when she was in the minor age of 16 years old in 2018, despite her disinterest. The Victim accused the Appellant of frequently raping her from 2019 to 2023 in various locations on the pretence of uploading on social media, the intimate pictures taken by him of the Victim.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the relationship between the Appellant and the Victim was consensual and that it started when both were majors.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the family of the Victim is influential and is behind the allegations put forth on the Appellant.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case refused any coercion or false promise on the pretext of a marriage and affirms that their families initially were in support of their relationship and approved the same.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

  1. The Respondentss, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the Appellant committed rape and exploitation under the pretence of love and marriage.
  2. The Respondentss, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the influence of the Appellant poses a menace of fiddling with witnesses and evidence.
  3. The Respondentss, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the recent demise of her father, the Victim is vulnerable.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for committing the offense of Rape of a woman under the age of Sixteen years as rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years which may extend to life imprisonment which shall mean the natural life of the person as well as fine as required for the medical expenditures as well as the expenditure of rehabilitation of the victim.
  2. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for committing the offense of Cheating as imprisonment for either description of a term which may extend to seven years as well as fine.
  3. Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 prescribes the Punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault on a woman less than sixteen years of age as imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years which may extend to the natural life of the person as well as fine.
  4. Section 5(L) of the POCSO ACT, 2012 defines Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault.
  5. Section 6 of the POCSO ACT, 2012 prescribes the Punishment for committing Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault on woman below the age of sixteen years as rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years which may extend to life imprisonment which shall mean the natural life of the person as well as fine.

ISSUES

  1. The main issues in the present case revolves around whether the carnal relationship between the Appellant and the Victim was consensual or coerced?
  2. Whether the Appellant poses a menace of fiddling with the evidences or witnesses?
  3. Whether the influence of the Appellant or the family background of the Victim affects the case?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Varun Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka, observed the consensual relationship between the Appellant and the Victim which lasted for several years. The court focused on the influential family background of the Victim and questioned the reliability of the allegations put forth against the Appellant and that the delay in instituting the complaint and the continued relationship between the Victim and the Appellant raised doubts on the legitimacy of the allegations against the Appellant. The court, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstance of the present case, grants the anticipatory bail to the Appellant, imposing certain conditions to ensure his coordination with the process of investigation.

“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

Procedures to be followed in cases where protest petition is to be treated as a separate complaint: SC

Blog , , , , , , ,

Case title:-Mukhtar Zaidi V. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Case no:- criminal appeal no. of 2024 (arising out of SLP (CRL.) NO.9122 OF 2021)

Dated on:- 18th April 2024

Quorum:- Justice Vikram Nath

Facts of the case

Respondent no.2 lodged a First Information Report before the CJM, Aligarh in case No. 129/2020 under sections 147, 342,323,307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The same was investigated and after investigation the police submitted report under section 173(2) Cr.p.c, according to which the investigating officer found that no evidence could be collected which could substantiate the allegations made in the FIR. The said report was submitted to the Court concerned whereupon notices were issued to the informant. The informant filed a Protest Petition along with affidavits to show that the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer was not a fair investigation. The CJM, by order dated 08.03.2021 rejected the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and further proceeded to take cognizance for offences under Sections 147, 342, 323, 307, 506 of the IPC and under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Cr.P.C. and also directed that the matter would continue as a State case. Accordingly, it summoned the accused, fixed 30th April, 2021. This order of cognizance and summoning the present appellant was assailed before the High Court by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. registered as Application u/s.482 No.15273 of 2021. The said application has sine been dismissed by the High Court giving rise to the present appeal.

Contentions of the appellant:-

CJM had relied upon not only the Protest Petition but also on the affidavits of witnesses which were filed along with the Protest Petition to support the contents of the complaint. Once the CJM was relying upon additional material in the form of evidence, along with the Protest Petition then the only option for the CJM was to treat it as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and proceed accordingly. The said case could not have been continued as a State case and should have been treated as a private complaint. Once additional evidence was being relied upon which had been filed along with the Protest Petition then the only option open was to treat it as a private complaint and after following the due procedure in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.

Contentions of the respondant:-

CJM did not take into consideration any additional evidence filed in the form of affidavits along with the Protest Petition. He only relied upon the material collected during the investigation as contained in the case diary. Based upon the same, CJM rejected the police report and took cognizance which was within his domain and such cognizance would fall within Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

Legal Provisions:-

Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C- issue of summons

Section 200 Cr.P.C- Examination of the complainant

Section 482 Cr.P.C- inherent power of High Court

Section 173(2) Cr.P.C- police report

Issues:-

How the Magistrate would proceed under Section 190 Cr.P.C., once the Investigating Officer had submitted a closure report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C?

Courts judgement and analysis:-

Where initially the complainant has not filed any complaint before the Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC, but, has approached the police only and where the police after investigation have filed the ‘B’ report, if the complainant wants to protest, he is thereby inviting the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC on a complaint. 

 If it were to be so, the Protest Petition that he files shall have to satisfy the requirements of a complaint as defined in Section 2(d) CrPC, and that should contain facts that constitute offence, for which, the learned Magistrate is taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC.

 If it is to be simply styled as a Protest Petition, without containing all those necessary particulars that a normal complaint has to contain, then, it cannot be construed as a complaint for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 CrPC.

However, in the present case as the Magistrate had already recorded his satisfaction that it was a case worth taking cognizance and fit for summoning the accused, the Magistrate ought to have followed the provisions and the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. 

 

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed to set aside the orders passed by the High Court as also the CJM, Aligarh. However, it is open for the Magistrate to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and proceed in accordance to law as laid down under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C

“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- Parvathy P.V.

 

0

Procedures to be followed in cases where protest petition is to be treated as a separate complaint: SC

blog, Supreme court , , , ,

Case title:- Mukhtar Zaidi V. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No:- criminal appeal no. of 2024 (arising out of SLP (CRL.) NO.9122 OF 2021)
Dated on:- 18th April 2024
Quorum:- Justice Vikram Nath
Facts of the case
Respondent no.2 lodged a First Information Report before the CJM, Aligarh in case No. 129/2020 under sections 147, 342,323,307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The same was investigated and after investigation the police submitted report under section 173(2) Cr.p.c, according to which the investigating officer found that no evidence could be collected which could substantiate the allegations made in the FIR. The said report was submitted to the Court concerned whereupon notices were issued to the informant. The informant filed a Protest Petition along with affidavits to show that the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer was not a fair investigation. The CJM, by order dated 08.03.2021 rejected the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and further proceeded to take cognizance for offences under Sections 147, 342, 323, 307, 506 of the IPC and under Section 190 (1) (b) of the Cr.P.C. and also directed that the matter would continue as a State case. Accordingly, it summoned the accused, fixed 30th April, 2021. This order of cognizance and summoning the present appellant was assailed before the High Court by way of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. registered as Application u/s.482 No.15273 of 2021. The said application has sine been dismissed by the High Court giving rise to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:-
CJM had relied upon not only the Protest Petition but also on the affidavits of witnesses which were filed along with the Protest Petition to support the contents of the complaint. Once the CJM was relying upon additional material in the form of evidence, along with the Protest Petition then the only option for the CJM was to treat it as a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and proceed accordingly. The said case could not have been continued as a State case and should have been treated as a private complaint. Once additional evidence was being relied upon which had been filed along with the Protest Petition then the only option open was to treat it as a private complaint and after following the due procedure in Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.
Contentions of the Respondent:-
CJM did not take into consideration any additional evidence filed in the form of affidavits along with the Protest Petition. He only relied upon the material collected during the investigation as contained in the case diary. Based upon the same, CJM rejected the police report and took cognizance which was within his domain and such cognizance would fall within Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
Legal provisions:-
Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C- issue of summons
Section 200 Cr.P.C- Examination of the complainant
Section 482 Cr.P.C- inherent power of High Court
Section 173(2) Cr.P.C- police report
Issues:-
How the Magistrate would proceed under Section 190 Cr.P.C., once the Investigating Officer had submitted a closure report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C?
Courts judgement and analysis:-
Where initially the complainant has not filed any complaint before the Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC, but, has approached the police only and where the police after investigation have filed the ‘B’ report, if the complainant wants to protest, he is thereby inviting the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC on a complaint.
If it were to be so, the Protest Petition that he files shall have to satisfy the requirements of a complaint as defined in Section 2(d) CrPC, and that should contain facts that constitute offence, for which, the learned Magistrate is taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC.
If it is to be simply styled as a Protest Petition, without containing all those necessary particulars that a normal complaint has to contain, then, it cannot be construed as a complaint for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 CrPC.
However, in the present case as the Magistrate had already recorded his satisfaction that it was a case worth taking cognizance and fit for summoning the accused, the Magistrate ought to have followed the provisions and the procedure prescribed under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed to set aside the orders passed by the High Court as also the CJM, Aligarh. However, it is open for the Magistrate to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and proceed in accordance to law as laid down under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C
“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- Parvathy P.V.

0

“Supreme Court Validates Lower Court’s Acquittal in Karnataka State Case.”

Blog, Supreme court , , , ,

Case Title – Parteek Bansal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case Number – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2520/2017

Dated on – 6th March,2017

Quorum – Justice Vikram Nath

FACTS OF THE CASE

In The Case of Parteek Bansal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors., the Appellant and the Respondent No. 3 initially met each other online in June 2014. The father of the Respondent No. 3, who is the Respondent No.2 in the present case, visited the appellant in Udaipur, the appellant who is a Chartered Accountant based in Hisar, was approached by the Respondent No.2 regarding a wedding proposal for his daughter, the Respondent No. 2 in the present case, who was at the time working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Udaipur, Rajasthan. The engagement of the Respondent No. 3 and the appellant took place in Udaipur on 18th February,2015 followed by a wedding on the 21st of March,2015. However, on 10th October, 2015, the Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the appellant at the Hisar Police Station under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A similar complaint was also filed by the Respondent No. 2 at the Udaipur Police Station on the 15th of October,2015, five days later of the complaint, leading to the registration of FIR NO. 156 on the 1st of November,2015. Initially, the first FIR registered in Hisar implicated several family members of the appellant, but after conducting further investigation, only the appellant was proceeded with the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, the trail commenced against the appellant in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hisar. Concurrently, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 before the High Court of Rajasthan and sought to quash the second FIR registered in Udaipur. However, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petition on the 6th of March, 2017 citing the precedence of the complaint in Udaipur and lack of awareness by the Rajasthan Police regarding the earlier complaint in Hisar. Being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan, the appellant appealed the case before the Supreme Court of India, which further stayed for investigation in the Udaipur FIR until further orders. Adhering to the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan, the trial in Hisar concluded and the Trial Court acquitted the appellant on the 2nd of August, 2017. The judgment and the acquittal order revealed that the prosecution called upon several witnesses, including the Investigating Officer and other members of the police force. However, they were unable to bring forward the complainant and the victim to testify during the proceedings of the court, resulting in the conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution and proceedings with the statement recording of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before ultimately acquitting the appellant.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

  1. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case pointed out two complaints, the acquittal judgments and the ostensible errors in the impugned orders and that these errors lead to the series of events, with the complaint at Udaipur was former than that at Hisar and secondly, the Rajasthan Police having no knowledge of the proceedings being conducted at Hisar.
  2. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the complainants were well-aware of the multiplicity of the complaints registered in Hisar as well as the Udaipur Police Station but they did not take any requisite step to withdraw their complaint stating that it was wrongly registered in Hisar or that it may be transferred to Udaipur for the purpose of investigation.
  3. The appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the impugned proceeding were nothing but an abuse of the process of law and that the only motive of the complainant was to harass the appellant and make him face the prolonged trial of the courts.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

  1. The respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the court at Hisar had no territorial jurisdiction to conduct the trial of the present case as the offense was committed in Udaipur. Therefore, the acquittal judgment delivered by the Hisar Court was void.
  2. The respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the complaint should have been looked into and investigated by the Rajasthan Police. However, because of the interim order issued by the court, the investigation had been stalled. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the punishment for Husband or Relative of Husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
  2. Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the punishment for using a false property mark
  3. Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the power to examine the accused.

ISSUES

  1. The main issue in the present case revolves around whether the filing of two FIRs for the same incident is valid?
  2. Whether the decision of the High Court to dismiss the petition was appropriate, considering the circumstance and timing of filing of the FIRs in both the jurisdictions?
  3. Whether the trial adhered to the principles of a fair and just trial and due process?
  4. Whether the acquittal was justified on the basis of the inability of the prosecution to present important witnesses?

 COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Parteek Bansal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors., observed that the Respondent No. 2 and 3 were misusing their official powers by lodging complaints one after another. The court, further, observed that the deportment of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 of not presenting themselves before the Trial Court in Hisar nor withdrawing their complaint, signifies their sole intention to harass the appellant.  The court observed that even before this court, the respondent no. 2 and 3 vigorously opposed the quashing of the FIR in Udaipur. It was alleged in the FIR filed in Hisar that the Respondent No. 2 and 3 demanded a sum of Rupees 50,00,000 and an Innova Car while visiting the appellant. Thus, the court was of the opinion that the argument that no offense was committed in Hisar but only in Udaipur was incorrect. The court stated that the misuse of the state machinery for ulterior intentions and harassment of any individual warrants castigation. Therefore, the court imposed costs on Respondent No. 2 to compensate the appellant. The court in the present case, allowed appeal and quashed the order of the High Court as well as the proceedings registered as FIR No. 156/2015 dated 1st November,2015 at the Women Police Station, Udaipur are also quashed. The court ordered the Respondent No. 2 to pay costs of Rupees 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only), which was ordered to be deposited mandatorily with the Registrar of the Court within four weeks. The court stated that upon deposit of the total amount specified, % shall be paid to the appellant and another % shall be transferred to the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee.

“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 4 … 7