0

The court stressed that judicial interference in expert-driven judgments is limited unless the criteria are perverse or unreasonable

Blog ,

Case Title: MANINI KAUSHIK Versus THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA & ORS.

Case No: W.P.(C) 5438/2024 & CM APPL. 22456/2024

Decided on: 15th May , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

Facts of the case

The appellant asked the court for permission to compete in the 50-meter Rifle 3 Position Women Category at the Paris Olympic Selection Trials. The dates of these trials were set for April and May of 2024, respectively, in New Delhi and Bhopal. The appellant had competed in the women’s 50-meter Rifle 3 Position competition both domestically and internationally. Interestingly, she competed for China in the 2022 Asian Games and was a member of the squad that earned a silver medal. In October 2022, the NRAI set the standards for choosing the Olympic Shooting Teams. The NRAI revised the eligibility requirements and added more constraints in November 2023. The appellant claimed to have met the initial 2022 requirements.

Issues

1. Whether the NRAI’s November 2023 adjustment to the selection criteria was fair and justified, given that the initial criteria had been established In October 2022?

2. Whether does the appellant now face unfair disadvantages as a result of the rule change?

Legal Provisions

The Indian Constitution’s Article 226 specifies the High Court’s writ authority.

Appellant Contentions

In the aforementioned case, the appellant, through her attorney, contended that the November 2023 amendment to the NRAI selection criteria was unjust and amounted to altering the rules of the game after it had already started. The appellant was disadvantaged by this change because it changed the eligibility requirement that she had initially sought to meet. The appellant underlined that, under the initial criteria, she should have been eligible for the selection trials because, as per the QROG points, she ranked fourth nationally, higher than some of the selected athletes like Nischal and Shriyanka Sadangi. The appellant claimed that she would have been one of the top five qualified shooters for the 2022 competition if the original 2022 criteria had been applied.

Respondent Contentions

In the aforementioned matter, the Respondent, via their legal representative, was satisfied that modifications to the ISSF calendar—which prolonged the qualifying event deadline and multiplied the chances for athletes to raise their rankings were the reason for the modification of the selection criteria. In order to choose the best athletes from a bigger group, the Respondent claimed that the altered criteria increased the pool of participants in the selection trials. The Respondent further claimed that this was done in good faith in an effort to improve the caliber of the squad.

Court Analysis and Judgement

After reviewing the Paris Olympic selection trials’ 2022 and 2023 requirements, the court concluded that the National Research and Analysis Institute (NRAI) had made the revisions In response to modifications to the ISSF timetable. The court stressed that judicial interference in expert-driven judgments is limited unless the criteria are perverse or unreasonable and found the 2023 criteria legitimate in their attempt to choose the top athletes from a wider pool. Despite the Appellant’s superior QROG ranking, the court decided that the athletes’ selection was warranted based on the national ranking as a whole. Both the Appellant’s application and any ongoing applications were dismissed by the court. The court reviewed the 2022 and 2023 criteria for the Paris Olympic selection trials, determining that the amendments were introduced by the National Research and Analysis Institute (NRAI) in response to changes in the ISSF calendar. The court deemed the 2023 criteria reasonable, aiming to select the best athletes from a larger pool, and emphasized that judicial intervention in expert-driven decisions is limited unless the criteria are perverse or unreasonable. The court acknowledged the Appellant’s higher QROG ranking but ruled that the overall national ranking justified the selection of those athletes. The court dismissed the Appellant’s application and any pending applications.

“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 Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to view the judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Delhi High Court Affirms ITAT’s Authority to Directly Remit Cases to TPO, Renders AO’s Second Reference Redundant

Uncategorized , , , , ,

 Case Name: New Delhi Television Ltd. v. Dispute Resolution Panel 2 & Anr 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 2322/2021 

Dated: May20, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Yashwanth Varma and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The writ petitioner challenges the Dispute Resolution panel’s ruling. Panel from January 29, 2021, which has refuted its concerns about the preliminary evaluation order formulated on March 31, 2013. That particular draft the evaluation order was created in response to a directive issued by the Officer of Transfer Pricing on October 29, 2019. It appears that the petitioner to have argued before the DRP that, in essence, the reference to the TPO on December 27, 2018, was a follow-up reference to allegedly implement the Income Tax Appellate Court’s ruling tribunal on July 14, 2017.  

Despite having framed an order on October 17, 2017, the record would show that no equivalent order as required by Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 92CA(4) was framed. In order to give effect to the original ITAT order dated July 14, 2017, the petitioner had urged the DRP to consider that the reference made on December 27, 2018, as well as the consequential order dated October 29, 2019, framed by the TPO, were manifestly barred by the statute of limitations as embodied in Section 153(3) of the Act. 

Nevertheless, the DRP declined to consider the restriction challenge, pointing out that Section 144C(8) limits its authority to verifying, modifying, or improving the changes suggested in the draft order. It seems to have essentially adopted the stance that it could not consider a jurisdictional challenge brought forth as an objection under Section 144C(2) of the Act. It is offended by the aforementioned action, which led to the current writ petition being filed.  

According to the Special Bench’s previously stated opinion, it seems that the appeal itself was instructed to be presented before the suitable ITAT Bench for resolution with regard to the findings as produced. It would be relevant to remember that on July 14, the ITAT when discussing the topic of corporate guarantees in 2017, returned the matter with the warning for the TPO’s consideration. That the aforementioned query will be held until the decision was made by the Particular Bench in the ongoing case.  

 LEGAL PROVISIONS:  

  • Section 92CA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961- After receiving the order under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer will calculate the assessee’s total income under section 92C, sub-section (4), taking into account the arm’s length price that the Transfer Pricing Officer determined under sub-section (3). 
  • Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act– An order under section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment or an order under section 92CA, as the case may be, may be made at any time before the end of the nine-month period following the end of the fiscal year in which the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 

The learned counsel for the appellants fiercely and strongly argued that a reading of the ITAT’s order dated July 14, 2017, makes it clear that the parties’ permission was obtained before the TPO was mentioned. Mr Jolly emphasised that the respondents had not contested the order dated July 14, 2017, insofar as it related to the referral to the TPO. As a result, they were ineligible to criticise or raise doubts about the propriety of the process used by the ITAT to make that referral. 

It was also emphasised that while the respondents filed appeals on January 02, 2018, against the ITAT’s order dated July 14, 2017, those appeals are limited to the merits of the several issues that were ultimately decided. Even in those appeals, which The learned counsel filed, the respondents do not criticise or cast doubt on the propriety of the ITAT’s decision to forward the case to the TPO.  

The learned counsel went on to say that a simple reading of the TPO’s first ruling, dated October 17, 2017, would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aforementioned authority had acted in accordance with the ITAT’s instructions and to give effect to and carry out the order dated July 14, 2017.  

The TPO’s reference and assumption of jurisdiction were subsequently challenged on the basis of limitation as outlined in Section 153 of the Act. The learned counsel contended that the time frame within which the AO or the TPO could have concluded that exercise would be governed by Section 153(3) of the Act, unquestionably in terms of the order of July 14, 2017, and which would clearly be liable to be read as requiring a fresh assessment to be undertaken.  

When considering this, skilled counsel argued that the deadline for creating a draft appeal effect order would have ended on December 31, 2018. The learned counsel stated that this would logically follow from the Act’s Section 153(3)’s straightforward language.   

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants were sharply and passionately rejected by the learned counsel for originally filed a preliminary objection, arguing that the writ petition should not be granted in defiance of the DRP’s directives. According to The learned counsel’s submission, Section 144C of the Act establishes a unique method to address situations in which alterations in transfer pricing may lead to variances. According to The learned counsel’s submission, qualified assessees are provided with a draft assessment order in all circumstances whereby they are entitled to file objections with the DRP under the Act. It was mentioned that after the DRP rejects those objections, the issue is brought before the AO, who would then decide whether to issue an assessment order.  

As per the advice of knowledgeable legal counsel, an assessee’s entitlement to challenge the respondents’ actions or pursue legal remedies will only be acknowledged upon the drafting of a final assessment decision that follows the DRP’s directives. The learned counsel argued that the DRP’s resolution of objections does not create a liability and is merely a step towards assessment in the event that the assessee is eligible. According to knowledgeable counsel, a tax liability wouldn’t materialise until after a final assessment decision was approved and was subject to an ITAT appeal.  

Subsequently, it was argued that the challenge to the DRP’s recommendations is misguided because it is evident that the aforementioned authority lacks the authority to consider any potential jurisdictional issues, including objections to limitations. It was argued that the DRP’s authority is limited to “confirming, reducing or enhancing the variations proposed,” as would be clear from Section 144C(8) of the Act. The learned counsel argues that this authority cannot be seen as equivalent to or similar to the authority to set aside.  

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

First, the court noted that the provisions included in the Finance Act, 2016 were the first to introduce and structure the “nine” and “twelve” month window governing assessments to be made post remit by the ITAT and in cases where a reference under Section 92CA(1) of the Act may be made during an ongoing assessment. Section 153 of the Finance Act, 2014 fully acknowledged and established provisions regarding assessments that may need to be made in compliance with the method outlined under Section 92CA of the Act. This is the second aspect of some relevance.  

After outlining the main points of contention, we believe it is fair to take a closer look at Mr. Hossain’s preliminary objection. Recall that Mr. Hossain had argued that the petitioner was only contesting a DRP order, which in any event carries no legal consequences. The main argument of the submission was that this Court would not be able to use the Article 226 of the Constitution’s jurisdiction if no corresponding order of assessment had been framed. For the following reasons, we are unable to support that objection.  

The court also noted that the Act’s Section 92CA(1) specifies that the concerned AO alone may refer to the TPO. Nonetheless, we see no reason to question the ITAT’s authority to make such a reference while reviewing an appeal that might be brought before it, given the stature and position that have been bestowed upon it. This is because, according to Section 253 of the Act, an assessee has the right to contest a directive that the DRP issued and that may have been converted into a real assessment order.  

The court also discovered that the ITAT’s order referring the case to the “Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer/Dispute Resolution Panel” was at issue in the ruling made by a knowledgeable single judge of the Karnataka High Court in the TE Connectivity case.  

In any event, the High Court finally ruled in favour of the assessee in that particular case. We are unable to find any observation or conclusion in that decision that might be interpreted as supporting the arguments made by the respondents in this particular 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.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment. 

0

Supreme Court Affirms Metropolitan Magistrate’s Ruling: Insufficient Evidence for Public Caste-Based Abuse Claims Leads to Dismissal of FIR Application

Blog , , , ,

Supreme Court Affirms Metropolitan Magistrate’s Ruling: Insufficient Evidence for Public Caste-Based Abuse Claims Leads to Dismissal of FIR Application 

Case Name: Priti Agarwalla And Others v. The State of GNCT Of Delhi And Others 

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No (S). 348  2021 

Dated: May 17, 2024 

Quorum:  Justice M M Sundresh and Justice S V N Bhatti 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

An eager equestrian athlete can train at the Olympic Riding and Equestrian Academy, New Delhi, or simply “OREA.” The training institution in question is managed and administered by Mr. Kapil Nath Modi. The OREA trainee athletes were Appellant Nos. 2, 3, 6, and Respondent No. 2. The mother of appellant number two is appellant number one. Appellant No. 6’s parents are Appellant Nos. 4 and 5. 

June 2010 marked the Academy’s acceptance of Appellant No. 2 for equestrian training. 2009 marked the acceptance of Appellant No. 3 into OREA. It had been little more than two years since Appellant No. 6 began training at the Academy. A dedicated athlete who aspired to become the first dressage Olympic champion, respondent number two states that she has been training in equestrian sport at OREA since 2015. 

Since 1900, equestrian sports have been a part of the Olympic Games, having originated in the Greek Classics. Horse ballet is the colloquial name for the dressage sport. The judges are the riders and their equines depending on how they move, remain composed, flexible, and supple. One assesses the horse’s eagerness to do each step with the least amount of rider encouragement. Even for competitors who are not horseback riders, this activity exhibits the flawless synchronisation between the rider and the horse.  

The debate taken into consideration in this appeal is whether the athletes trained at OREA, who aimed to master the body and mind of a horse, have lost their composure, flexibility, and suppleness as a result of their training. The criminal appeal relates to the application dated 09.05.2018 filed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 on 29.04.2018 before SHO P.S. Fatehpur Beri, South Delhi, under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (also known as “the Act of 1989”) against the Appellants herein.  

 ISSUE: 

  • Whether the order dated 09.07.2018 of the Metropolitan Magistrate conforms to the material on record and satisfies the mandate of section 156(3) of the CrPC? 
  • Whether the complaint(s) dated 29.04.2018/09.05.2018 make out a prima facie case of an offence under section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act 1989? 
  • Whether the impugned order is valid, legal and tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case?  

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • section 156(3) of the CrPC- Procedure for investigation. The officer in charge of a police station shall promptly report any suspicions he may have about the commission of an offence to a magistrate who is authorised to take cognizance of the offence upon receiving a police report. He may also designate one of his subordinate officers, who must not be lower in rank than that prescribed by the State Government by general or special order, to accompany him to the scene to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and, if necessary, to take action for the offender’s discovery and apprehension. 

 CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS:  

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the order that is the subject of the appeal did not fully consider the context of the dispute that existed prior to the filing of the application on May 9, 2018, or the complaint on April 29, 2018, with the Ld. Magistrate. Respondent No. 2 has been urged by the OREA administrator to lodge a complaint, despite the fact that no violations of the Act of 1989 have been observed throughout time.  

He contends that Respondent No. 2 and the trainee appellants received training at OREA, that nothing is said to have transpired for years, and that all came to light when the appellants filed complaints against the administrator on April 3, 2018, and April 11, 2018.  

The administrator has pursued or pressured Respondent No. 2 to begin prosecution by filing a complaint dated 29.04.2018 and the application dated 09.05.2018 under the Act of 1989 against the appellants. This is because the administrator was unable to obtain anticipatory bail, among other things, in the FIRs filed by the Appellants.  

These complaints are said to be motivated and untrue. By drawing our attention to the numerous complaints that the appellants have filed against the OREA administrator, an attempt has been made to demonstrate that Respondent No. 2 has been brought in without any grievances against the appellants.  

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The learned counsel of the respondents argued that the comment that promotes caste is criminal by the Indian Penal Code of 1860. The Act of 1989 was adopted by the Parliament because it became apparent that the marginalised groups in Indian society needed to be shielded from caste-based insults and acts of assistance in crimes against individuals and property.  

Respondent No. 2 is an individual and represents one of the millions of SC/ST persons in the nation who aspire to compete in the Olympics and win a gold medal in dressage. Respondent No. 2’s complaints, submitted through a complaint dated April 29, 2018, were ignored by the police. When section 156(3) of the CrPC was invoked, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, via an order dated July 9, 2018, made it nearly impossible to prosecute an offence under the Act of 1989.  

He claims that Respondent No. 2’s theory of the countercase for the administrator’s reason, etc., is just another tactic used to refute the complaints. Ld. Counsel contends that in order to understand the offence that has been reported against the appellants in this case, this Court should take into account the complaints dated 29.04.2018 and 09.05.2018 as well as the pertinent documents.  

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court observed that a few significant adjustments have been made to the legislative scheme under the Act of 1989 through Act No. 27 of 2018. It is important to recognise that Section 18A is one of the provisions that affects the Trial Court’s process. On August 20, 2018, Section 18A of the Act of 1989 became operative. As previously noted, the purported complaints in this instant appeal were made between April 29, 2018, and August 2, 2018, and they pertain to an allegation that was made two years earlier.  

Regarding the application submitted in accordance with section 156(3) of the CrPC, the court considers the discretion and jurisdiction of a magistrate. Is it necessary for the Magistrate to act upon a complaint that is brought before him and give instructions filing of a formal complaint (FIR) or, at his option, ordering a preliminary investigation after reviewing the charges. The answer to the query revolves around CrPC section 156(3).  

The court does not intend to provide numerous, concise citations on the subject. According to section 156(3) of the CrPC, the Magistrate poses a query: does the complaint as it is now presented provide evidence for directing the filing of a formal complaint or requesting information or a report from the police station with jurisdiction. The boundaries of this exercise’s inner and outside jurisdiction varies from case to case based on the type of complaint and of the charges and offence detailed in this kind of complaint. 

Taking everything into account, the Metropolitan Magistrate’s ruling is sound and unchallengeable given the facts of the case. As a result, the contested judgement is unsupportable and goes against the clause in section 4(2) of the Act of 1989 for the reasons and consideration mentioned above. As a result, the Criminal Appeal is granted and the contested judgement is overturned.  

“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.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora 

Click to view judgment.

0

The Delhi High Court quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial differences in light of amicable settlement between the parties.

Blog , ,

Case Title: VIPUL MEHTA AND ANR. Versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Case No: CRL.M.C. 3771/2024

Decided on: 10th May , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE Mr. ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

Facts of the case

In the document, a case involving applications to quash FIRs pertaining to marriage problems is discussed. The court took into account the nature of the offenses, the impact on society, and the settlement reached between the parties. Even with a settlement, serious crimes like rape, murder, and dacoity cannot be erased. On the other hand, infractions that involve a civil dispute or small events in which the victim receives compensation can be eligible for quashing. The court also assesses whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the accused party and whether there is little chance of a compromise. Because the parties in this case reached a friendly settlement, the court decided to quash the FIRs.

Issues

1. Whether aspects of the parties’ settlement are taken into account by the court while determining whether to dismiss criminal charges?

Legal Provisions

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is a provision that safeguards the inherent powers of the High Courts in India. It states:

“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant argues that a variety of case-specific considerations determine whether criminal proceedings may be quashed in light of a settlement reached between the parties. Even In cases when a settlement is reached, serious crimes like murder, rape, and dacoity are typically not overturned. On the other hand, offenses pertaining to civil disputes or small instances in which the victim receives compensation can be subject to quashing. The evidence for the alleged offense is evaluated by the court, together with the possibility that the conviction is unlikely because of a settlement reached by the parties. Because the parties in this case reached a friendly settlement, the court decided to quash the FIRs.

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent admits that every situation is different when it comes to whether or not to dismiss criminal charges in light of an agreement between the parties. Even after a settlement, serious crimes like murder, rape, and dacoity are usually not overturned. On the other hand, offenses pertaining to civil disputes or small instances in which the victim receives compensation can be subject to quashing. The evidence for the alleged offense is also assessed by the court, as is the possibility that the conviction will be slim because of a settlement reached by the parties. The responder in this particular instance affirms that all disagreements have been.

Court Analysis and Judgement

This document is a ruling from a court in which two distinct petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were brought in an attempt to void marriage-related police reports. The court took into account the nature of the offenses, the impact on society, and the settlement reached between the parties. Even after a settlement, serious crimes like murder and rape cannot be undone, but small occurrences or crimes involving a civil dispute can. Since the issue was handled peacefully, the court opted not to impose costs but instead to dismiss the FIRs and order the petitioners to plant trees as a symbolic gesture. The ruling puts a stop to the procedures and fosters harmony.

“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 Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR on serious offences like murder and rape in light of amicable settlement between the parties.

Blog , ,

Case Title:  MAHENDER AND ORS. Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Case No:  W.P.(CRL) 1483/2024

Decided on: 10th May , 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE Mr. ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

Facts of the case

In this matter, a petition under Sections 354/323/324/34 IPC is being filed to have FIR No. 0353/2015 quashed. The petition was filed in response to an alleged incident in which the petitioner reportedly beat the complainant’s kid and touched her inappropriately. The parties reached a friendly settlement, and the State has no issues with the FIR being quashed as a result of the settlement . In order to ensure justice and stop the misuse of the legal system, the petitioners used Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offense’s nature and social impact determine whether criminal proceedings may be halted. Although minor incidents with no social impact can be considered for quashing, serious offenses such as murder or rape cannot be overturned.

Issues

  1. What criteria are used to decide whether to invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure’s power to quash criminal proceedings?

Legal Provisions

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is a provision that safeguards the inherent powers of the High Courts in India. It states:

“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant argues that they have no more complaints because the case’s parties, who are neighbors, have reached an amicable settlement. They emphasize that there is little likelihood of conviction because of the peaceful settlement and that their goal in ending the proceedings is to foster harmony and go on with their lives. Thus, they contend that carrying on with the procedures would be pointless and a misuse of the legal system, which would result in the FIR and any associated actions being quashed.

Respondent’s Contentions

According to the respondent, there have been no more grievances because all disagreements between the parties have been resolved peacefully. They declare that they want to put an end to the conflict so that everyone may get on with their lives and live in harmony. The likelihood of conviction is low due to the friendly settlement, and pursuing the case further would be a misuse of the legal system. The FIR has been quashed, along with the accompanying procedures under Sections 354/323/324/34 IPC.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The ruling highlights the significance of taking into account the nature of the offense and its impact on society as it analyzes the petitioners’ use of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to dismiss criminal proceedings because the parties involved reached an amicable settlement .Even with a settlement, serious crimes like murder and rape cannot be quashed, but smaller occurrences or personal infractions might be .The parties, who are neighbors, have reached a settlement that will result in the quashing of the FIR and any associated actions in an effort to foster harmony and move on with life.

“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 Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 22