Legal Updates

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Gurpreet Singh & Ors., has held that while exercising the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) the Court can interfere with the order of the acquittal if the acquittal of an accused would lead to a significant miscarriage of justice.

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of High Court Bar Association Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., has overturned the 2018 Asian Resurfacing judgment and set aside the automatic stay vacation rule. The Supreme Court also issued crucial guidelines on the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

·       The Allahabad High Court in the matter of M/S Genius Ortho Industries v. Union of India and Ors., has held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) can only be exercised for a petitioner who has approached the Court in good faith and with clean hands.

·       The Delhi High Court in the matter of Kirti v. Renu Anand & Ors., has held that the orders passed by the tribunals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are also separately amenable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

·       The Karnataka High Court in the matter of Dr. Yogananda A v. The Visvesvaraya Technological University & Ors., has held that Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) provides safeguards to the government employees including the right to fair inquiry before any adverse action is taken against the employees.

·       The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Raksha and Anr v. State of UP & Ors., has held that as per the Hindu Law, a person having a spouse alive cannot live in an illicit and live-in relationship in contravention of the provisions of the law.

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Shiv Prasad Semwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., has held that for applying Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) the presence of two or more groups or communities is essential.

·       The Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Suresh Prasad v. The State of Jharkhand has held that once the basic ingredient of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is proved by the prosecution then the Court will presume the guilt of the accused.

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar Versus State of Karnataka, has held that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation for committing an offence under the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

·       The Calcutta High Courtin the matter of Janak Ram v. State, has held that addressing an unknown lady as darling would be a criminal offence under Sections 354A and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (IPC).

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of A.M. Mohan v. The State has held that for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) it must be shown that the person who cheated was dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person.

·       The Gauhati High Court in the matter of Dimbeswar Bobo v. The State of Assam, has held that without proving the mens rea, mere possession of the said counterfeit notes is not enough to constitute an offence under Section 489B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

·       The Patna High Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., has held that the act of a married woman of staying in the house of an old man of different religion after being left by her husband does not constitute adultery.

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Srikant Upadhyay v. The State of Bihar has held that an accused would not be entitled to pre-arrest bail if the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is pending against him.

·       The Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Amit Kumar Kachhap v. Sangeeta Toppo, has held that when a wife chooses to live separately from her husband without any valid reason, she is not eligible for maintenance under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

·       The Madras High Court in the matter of Simon and Ors. v. State has held that public assembling and demonstrating against police will not be considered as an offence when there is no prohibitory order under the provisions of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (CrPC).

·       The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Vishwanath v. State of U.P and Ors., has held that Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) doesn’t bar registration of FIR in a case where alleged forgery has been committed in the document outside the Court.

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand has held that the chargesheet should abide by all the particulars of Section 173 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

·       The Kerala High Court in the matter of Santhosh @ Chandu v. State, has held that irregularity caused by the misjoinder of charges doesn’t vitiate conviction unless miscarriage of justice is proved.

·       The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Majid @ Bablu & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh has held that the learned trial Court should pass the order under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(CrPC) before passing the order of acquittal.

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala summarized certain factors that the Courts considered while deciding convict’s period of sentence before remission could be sought.

·       The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Omprakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Anr., has held that the power conferred under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) should be exercised by the criminal courts with a judicious mind and without any unnecessary delay.

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafar v. State of Kerala has held that the testimony of the prosecution witness identifying the accused persons at the police station cannot be considered as a proper Test Identification Parade (TIP) to convict the accused.

·       The Supreme Court in the matter of Ekene Godwin & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu has held that recording only the examination in chief of witnesses without recording their cross-examination is contrary to the law.

·       The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi v. Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas and Anr., has held that when the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is silent regarding a procedural aspect, the inherent power of the Court can come to its aid for doing real and substantial justice between the parties.

·       The Supreme Courtin the matter of Thangam and Anr. v. Navamani Ammal, has held that the failure on the part of the defendant to give a specific para-wise reply in the written statement would make the allegations made in the plaint as admitted against the defendant.

·       The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Prakash Kodwani v. Smt. Vimla Devi Lakhwani & Ors., has held that as per the provisions of Rule 17 of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), only pleadings proposed should be considered in the amendment application and not the merits of the proposed amendment.

·       The Delhi High Court in the matter of X. v. Y. has held that a wife’s request for financial support from her husband cannot be termed as an act of cruelty.