On 20th of February 2025 authorities issued Section 194 and Section245 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009 show cause notices to Applicants for demolition their buildings. The petitioners responded to the notices, providing the necessary documents and raising concerns that the authorities were intent on demolishing the constructions without properly addressing their responses. The Rajasthan High Court has directed that the status quo be maintained with respect to the properties in question, ensuring that no demolition takes place until the next hearing scheduled for March 11, 2025.
The Delhi High Court, in a verdict authored by justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. ruled in favor of DDA. The court based its decision on a provision contained in Clause 24 of the agreement: no leasehold rights were given to M/s Mehta Constructions since the lease-deed itself had never actually been executed. It also believed that the rights obtained by S.G.G. Towers were simply those originally enjoyed by M/s Mehta Constructions, and those were actually zero.
A divorced woman is posted her biodata in a Whatsapp group, looking for suitable match for a remarriage. The defendant/appellant started to communicate with her and express an intention to marry. Although she resisted a reception, he sent her naked pictures and kept up doing it. He also forced her to go to his place on December 7, 2023, under the pretence that he would show her his gold ornaments there. Then, allegedly he raped her. He then told her that he no longer wanted to marry her and avoided her calls. Accusations Against the Plaintiff: Charged with cheating; being dishonestly inducible, and accepting dishonestly induced deliver of goods under Sections 417, 420 and 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Plaintiff's Defence: Claimed to have been falsely implicated. Said in his application that as a public servant, his arrest was almost certain to bring about his suspension. Decision of the court: Rejecting the anticipatory bail application. Judgment: It was observed that the IO ought to have a free hand in dealing with grave allegations. pointed out that it is not an ideal time for mere assertion of being a public servant and the consequent suspension as valid grounds for bail. It can be seen that each matter must be dealt with on its specific facts and precedents do not necessarily apply generally, as the case May be (4 28 March 23). Legal Context: This application was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It stressed that anticipatory bail ought only to be given in exceptional circumstances.
The matter in dispute was whether a magistrate can instruct the police to put into force an FIR after taking the preliminary statement from me as complainant and ordering it inquire into truth. It was held that 156 CRPC is relate to factors before accepting any case even during appeals which means before a verdict is taken and without making further appearance before the original court– i.e., before meaning in current criminal law as well civil rquirements for appeal Section 200 CRPC: Once the magistrate chose the complaint procedure and recorded preliminary statements under section 200, then he could not go back to the pre-cognizance stage by ordering police register FIR.
Case- Preetha Radhakrishnana vs. State of Kerela & Connected Case The Hon'ble High Court held that the magistrate had the power to cancel under section 437(5) Cr.P.C. and read with 439(2). Both the writ petitions concerning Magistrate's order cancelling bail for 2nd/3rd accused and his decision not to release 1st accused on bail were rejected by the High Court. The verdict pointed out that Magistrates are allowed to cancel bail granted by the High Court where the original bail order gives the Magistrate such power-assuming, however, that a section 439(2) application to this effect has not been filed.
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani held it would be a gross invasion of the petitioner's security to arrest them under NDPS Act after 15 years. The court noted that 35 bottles of 100 ml Codeine Phosphate mixture fell within the Small quantityí category. Consequently the severity charge was reduced by this quite a bit. It stressed that whether something is commercial depends on the actual narcotic content in the mixture. It was unarguable that there could be no break from bail if the police saw no need for arrest over 15 years.
In cheque bounce cases under the NI Act, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana insisted on standardization. Generally, the penalty must equal the cheque amount, and carry at least 6 percent interest compounded annually from date of dishonor until judgment is entered. Before imposing fines, the law requires magistrates to take into account interim compensation paid under Section 143A or the amounts received by the accused during trial. Imprisonment is at a magistrate's discretion, the court added, recommending the minimum sentence unless the conduct of the accused demands otherwise. It also suggested that attention be paid on Section 138 to promoting a compensatory objective, to ensure that any measures taken as remedy should reflect its legislative intent with this payee-protecting provision.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that Section 47(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is mandatory, and any violation invalidates arrest and detention. Justices R Raghunandan and K Manmadha Rao quashed the remand order and ordered the detainee's immediate release due to procedural lapses. The court emphasized that strict compliance with BNSS procedural safeguards is essential for lawful arrest and detention.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal case against Ramesh Karoshi, a home guard, charged under Sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC [Sections 132 and 351 of BNSS]. Karoshi was accused of raising his voice and verbally abusing a police constable while demanding certain documents. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against him.
The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the Family Court's decision, ruling that a wife's vulgar chatting with other men, despite her husband's objections, amounts to mental cruelty and is a valid ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court noted that the wife's father, despite his long legal career, did not refute his written statement to the police regarding her vulgar chats with male friends. Finding the chats indecent, the court concluded that no husband would tolerate such behavior. With no counter-allegations from the wife against the husband, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the divorce decree.
The Delhi High Court ruled that an accused cannot be denied certified or attested copies of documents included in the chargesheet after the trial begins. Justice Vikas Mahajan clarified that even if the accused received a hard disk copy during Section 207 CrPC proceedings, they are still entitled to request certified copies of the chargesheet documents. The court directed the trial court to provide the accused with a cloned copy of the hard disk at their own expense, noting no proof that the hard disk was previously supplied.
The Supreme Court recently clarified the application of the *Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh* (2014) judgment in a case involving former Gujarat IAS officer Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma. It ruled that no preliminary inquiry is required if the allegations, such as corruption or abuse of power, clearly indicate a cognizable offense. The court held that blanket orders mandating preliminary inquiries or blocking FIRs would contradict the CrPC framework. Upholding the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court denied bail and affirmed the validity of FIR registrations without prior inquiry in Sharma’s case. It further stated that claims of malicious intent behind FIRs should be addressed during investigation or trial, not preemptively. This ruling reinforces strict adherence to Section 154 CrPC, limiting the scope for preliminary inquiries in cases of clear cognizable offenses.
The Supreme Court, under Section 482 CrPC, quashed proceedings against the director, ruling that continuing the case would be unjust since the director had no control over the company's affairs post-moratorium. The court emphasized that an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act materializes only after the 15-day period following the demand notice, not merely upon cheque dishonour. This judgment clarifies that the timing of the moratorium is crucial in determining a director's liability under the NI Act.
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed defamation proceedings against Supreme Court Senior Advocate G. Venkatesh and his wife, Padma Malini. The court held that the statements in the legal notice were factual and not defamatory, as they were part of private communication, not publicly published. It criticized the Magistrate for the undue delay in acting on the complaint and ultimately quashed the cognizance order.
The Supreme Court clarified that the cause of action under Section 138 of the NI Act arises not upon cheque dishonour but after the expiry of 15 days from the receipt of the demand notice. In this case, the 15-day period would have ended on 21.08.2018, while the IBC moratorium was already in effect from 25.07.2018. Since the cause of action arose after the moratorium, the Court ruled that the proceedings against the appellant could not continue. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the cheque dishonour case.