0

Compromise Between The Parties Is Enough To Settle A Case In Compoundable Offence: High Court Of Patna

Blog , ,

Citation: CR. MISC. No.40319

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma

Decided On: 01-11-2023

Introduction:

Present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in connection with Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019, G.R. No. 674 of 2019 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 504, 452 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Facts:

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after the police submitted charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and after framing of the charges, on intervention of the well wishers, the parties have compromised the case. It is next submitted that the opposite party no. 2 herein does not intend to pursue with the case or the trial.

Mr. Purushotam Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party concurs with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that he has instruction to make submissions on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party does not have any objection in the event if the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura framing charges against the petitioners is quashed.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

 

Considering the submissions made he order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in connection with Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019, G.R. No. 674 of 2019 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 504, 452 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is held quashed by the Court.

“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- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

“Courts Uphold Melsanthi Selection in Sabarimala: Petition Dismissed Amidst Scrutiny of Draw of Lots Process”

Blog , , ,

Title: MADHUSOODANAN NAMBOOTHIRI vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: WP(C) NO. 35545 OF 2023

Coram: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

Decided on: 9-11-23

Introduction:

In this case, the petitioner, who is a devotee of Lord Ayyappa and associated with the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition challenges the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi (chief priest) of the Sabarimala Temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24). The case appears to involve a dispute related to the appointment or selection of the chief priest at the Sabarimala Temple, and the petitioner is seeking legal intervention to challenge and rectify the selection process. The specific grounds on which the petitioner challenges the selection and the details of the Ext.P2 list of candidates are not provided in the brief introduction.

Facts:

In this case, the petitioner, a devotee of Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, has filed a writ petition challenging the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi (chief priest) of the temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24). The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Devaswom Commissioner to conduct the draw of lots for the selection of Melsanthi afresh, based on a specified list of candidates. The court took cognizance of the matter and, on November 1, 2023, viewed video clippings from ‘Asianet News’ regarding the draw of lots conducted in front of the Sanctum Sanctorum of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple on October 18, 2023. The court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board needed time to check if the CCTV footage of the draw of lots was available.

On November 2, 2023, the court viewed CCTV footage from the camera installed in the Sopanam of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. The court directed the learned Standing Counsel to provide a copy of the video to the petitioner’s counsel on WhatsApp. It was observed that the statement of facts in the writ petition lacked specific allegations against the 5th respondent.

On November 3, 2023, the court issued notice on admission to the 5th respondent, and the notice was ordered to be served by a special messenger, returnable by November 7, 2023. On the said date, the 5th respondent entered appearance through counsel.

The court, after hearing arguments from various parties on November 8, 2023, noted that the petitioner argued for a detailed inquiry to determine if any foul play or irregularities occurred during the draw of lots. The petitioner contended that the selection of the 5th respondent was suspicious and should be canceled. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Senior Government Pleader supported the need for a fair and transparent process for drawing lots, considering the upcoming festival. The Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent argued that the writ petition lacked specific allegations against the 5th respondent to vitiate his selection.

The case seems to revolve around allegations of irregularities or impropriety in the draw of lots for selecting the Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, and the court is considering the need for a detailed inquiry into these allegations. The petitioner contends that the selection process was suspicious, while the respondents argue for a fair and transparent process.

Court analysis and judgement:

In the case described, the court considered a writ petition challenging the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi (chief priest) of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for the year 1199 ME (2023-24). The petitioner raised concerns about the process of drawing lots for the selection and alleged impropriety by the Special Commissioner. The court noted that the paper containing the name of the 5th respondent and the one with the writing ‘Melsanthi’ were folded and rolled by the Special Commissioner with fingers but without using both palms, unlike the procedure followed for other candidates. The court also addressed the issue of returning the paper with the writing ‘Melsanthi’ before putting it in the second pot, explaining it as a standard practice. The court observed that both pots were shaken twice before and after entrusting them to the Melsanthi and Special Commissioner, causing some of the lots to unfold partially. The draw of lots was conducted by a small child considered a representative of the deity in the presence of the Observer appointed by the court, Board officials, and pilgrims.

After considering the pleadings, materials on record, video clippings, and CCTV footage, the court found no reason to interfere with the selection of the 5th respondent. The court rejected the challenge against the selection, even though it acknowledged that the first relief sought in the writ petition was not properly worded. The court also noted the presence of a large number of persons during the draw of lots, emphasizing that entry to the ‘Sopanam enclosure’ during such events should be limited to specific individuals, including the Special Commissioner, President of the Travancore Devaswom Board, Devaswom Commissioner, and the court-appointed Observer.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the selection of the 5th respondent as Melsanthi, and issued directions regarding the regulation of entry to the ‘Sopanam enclosure’ during the draw of lots.

“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: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

Landmark Decision: Court Upholds Social Welfare Nature of Provident Fund Act, Dismisses Appeals

Blog , , ,

Title: THANKAMMA BABY vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOCHI, KERALA

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4619 OF 2010

Coram:  ABHAY S. OKA, J.

Introduction:

The case revolves around whether the appellant’s establishment, engaged in manufacturing, assembling, and selling umbrellas, falls under the category of ‘trading and commercial establishments’ as per the 1962 notification issued under the 1952 Act. The appellant argues that it does not, based on the interpretation of the relevant clauses and legislative intent, while the respondent argues.

Facts:

In the case presented, the main issue revolves around the interpretation of clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 1952 Act). The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, assembling, and selling umbrellas, received a notice from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, alleging that the 1952 Act applied to the appellant. The notice claimed that the appellant’s business fell under the category of ‘trading and commercial establishments’ as notified by the Central Government in 1962.

A Section 7A inquiry was conducted by the respondent, who concluded that the 1962 notification covered the appellant’s case. The appellant filed a Review Petition, which was rejected, and an appeal to the Appellate Authority was also dismissed. Subsequently, a Writ Petition was filed, but the learned Single Judge dismissed it. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, in a Writ Appeal filed by the respondent, confirmed the order of the Single Judge.

The appellant’s counsel argued that establishments covered by clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 pertain to factories engaged in industries specified in Schedule I of the 1952 Act. Therefore, according to the appellant’s submission, clause (a) is applicable only to factories engaged in Schedule I industries, and factories not specified in Schedule I cannot be covered by clause (b) of sub-Section (3). The counsel asserted that clause (b) of sub-Section (3) does not refer to factories and, based on legislative intent, ‘any other establishment’ in clause (b) should not include a factory. The counsel also referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shibn Metal Works in support of the argument. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent contended that all levels of authority, including the respondent, appellate authority, Single Judge, and Division Bench, have unanimously ruled against the appellant. The argument was based on the assertion that the appellant’s business involves manufacturing and assembling umbrellas and selling them. Therefore, the respondent’s counsel argued that the appellant falls under the category of trading and commercial establishments specified in the 1962 notification.

Court analysis & Judgement:

In the judgment, it appears that the court, likely the Supreme Court or a relevant higher court, considered and rejected the appellant’s argument regarding the interpretation of clause (b) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the 1952 Act). The Constitution Bench, after considering clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 1, held that the Central Government has the power to specify establishments or classes of establishments not covered by the industries listed in Schedule I of the 1952 Act.                                The court rejected the argument that a notification under clause (b) could only be issued in respect of factories engaged in industries not covered by Schedule I. The judgment emphasized the social welfare nature of the legislation, describing it as a measure of social justice. In interpreting the legislation, the court adopted a purposive approach to give effect to the legislature’s intention. The court concluded that the notification under clause (b) could be issued for factories engaged in any industry not specified in Schedule I. Therefore, the contention that factories not covered by industries in Schedule I are exempt from the coverage of clause (b) was rejected. The judgment affirmed the views of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.

As a result, the appeals were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment also mentioned that if the appellant had incurred any monetary liability based on the orders of the respondent confirmed by the High Court, the appellant was granted three months to pay the necessary amount. This suggests that the appellant might have financial obligations resulting from the legal proceedings, and the court allowed a grace period for payment.

“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: Gauri Joshi

Click here to read judgement

0

Throwing On Another Person Any Liquid Or Substance Other Than ‘Acid’ Not An Offence U/S 326B IPC: Delhi High Court

Blog , , ,

Title: Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Others
Citation: W.P.(CRL) 712/2022

Coram: JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court provided a crucial clarification regarding interpreting Section 326-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasised that for an offence to be established under this section, it is essential that a person throws or attempts to throw ‘acid’ on another person. Importantly, the court specified that Section 326-B is exclusively tailored to address acid attacks and does not encompass incidents involving any other liquid or substance. This clarification offers a distinct understanding of the scope and application of Section 326-B, particularly in cases involving the throwing or attempted throwing of harmful substances on individuals.

Facts:

The case involves a respondent accusing her sister-in-law, the petitioner, of throwing a hot liquid at her, which allegedly landed on her right shoulder, blouse, and saree. Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the matter, highlighted that if the liquid were indeed ‘acid,’ there would likely be external injuries and traces of the acid on the respondent’s body.

The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR, claiming shared residency on a common property with the respondent. The petitioner argued that the FIR was a tactic to harass her, citing an ongoing property dispute between them. Additionally, it was noted that two complaints had been previously filed against the respondent by other occupants of the property.

In response, the respondent contested the existence of a property dispute and criticised the police investigation. The court considered an FSL report indicating that samples of the liquid substance collected from the property were Hydrochloric acid. However, the court noted that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the substance was thrown directly at the respondent’s body.

Court analysis and judgement:

In this case, the court provided a thorough analysis leading to the decision to quash the FIR. The central point of consideration was Section 326-B of the IPC, which specifies that an offense is established only if a person throws or attempts to throw ‘acid’ on another person and not any other liquid or substance. This legal criterion set the framework for evaluating the allegations.

The court took into account crucial medical evidence, including the discharge summary that indicated no external injury on the respondent at the time of hospital admission. Additionally, the PCR Form recorded the doctor’s statement asserting the absence of acid signs, categorizing it as a case of an old illness. These medical findings played a pivotal role in the court’s determination. Regarding the charge of criminal intimidation, the court observed a lack of substantive allegations in the FIR to substantiate the offense, providing a comprehensive legal analysis.

The legal representation included Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Mr. Anshul Mittal, Mr. Harshit Vashisht, and Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner, and Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Crl.) with Mr. Alok Sharma and Mr. Rohan Kumar, Advocates for the respondents. The court, based on its analysis, quashed the FIR, highlighting that the substance thrown was not confirmed to be ‘acid’ and suggested that the allegation stemmed from an ongoing property dispute between the parties. This judgment analysis underscores the court’s meticulous consideration of legal criteria, medical evidence, and the context surrounding the allegations.

“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: Gauri Joshi

0

To Curb Gun Problem, Make Bail Provisions More Stringent Like PMLA; Reverse Burden Of Proof: Amicus Tells Supreme Court

Blog , , ,

Title: Rajendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: M.A. No. 393 of 2023 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12831 of 2022

Coram: JUSTICE KM JOSEPH

Introduction:

The case introduces Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu’s role as the amicus curiae in an ongoing suo motu case in the Supreme Court, where the focus is on addressing the proliferation of unlicensed firearms. Nagamuthu proposes stricter bail provisions under various acts related to arms, explosives, and explosive substances. Notably, he suggests aligning these provisions with those found in acts like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Additionally, Nagamuthu recommends a reversal of the burden of proof, implying that the court should assume the guilt of the accused based on certain foundational facts unless proven otherwise by the accused.

Facts:

The case outlines several key suggestions by Senior Advocate S Nagamuthu in the ongoing suo motu case aimed at curbing the proliferation of illegal arms and ammunition. Firstly, Nagamuthu recommends the establishment of a government-appointed committee of experts to study inputs from various sources and formulate recommendations within a year. He also proposes referring potential legislative changes to the Law Commission to address inadequacies in existing laws related to the manufacture, sale, import, export, use, possession, and storage of arms and ammunition.

Furthermore, the amicus curiae suggests quarterly meetings of chief secretaries and police chiefs to assess the situation and understand regional challenges. The recommendations extend to supplementary measures, including changes in pre- and post-arrest bail provisions, expediting trials, presumptions of innocence, and establishing special police units and courts to fast-track investigations and trials. The focus is on strengthening regulatory measures and enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement in combating the illegal arms trade.

Case analysis and judgement:

The judicial proceedings in this case began when a bench led by retired judge KM Joseph, in February, took notice of the concerning issue of widespread possession and use of unlicensed firearms in India. This matter came to light during the hearing of a murder accused’s bail application. The court, led by Justice Joseph, highlighted the ‘disturbing’ trend and emphasized that unlike the United States, where the right to bear arms is recognized as a fundamental right, the Indian Constitution does not confer such a privilege.

The court, expressing the importance of addressing the use of unlicensed firearms, specifically sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government on the number of cases related to the possession and use of unlicensed firearms. Subsequent hearings expanded the scope, with the court urging not only the State of UP but all states, union territories, and the union home ministry to provide country-wide information on the measures taken to tackle the problem of unlicensed firearms. Apart from recommending improved implementation of the Arms Act, the court hinted at the possibility of legislative changes being necessary. The focus on seeking a robust response from all stakeholders and the consideration of potential legislative amendments indicates the court’s commitment to addressing the issue comprehensively and ensuring effective measures to curb the proliferation of unlicensed firearms in India.

“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 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: Gauri Joshi

1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9