This is the landmark judgment, it was held that when a second complaint on same facts but fresh evidence is filed it can be entertained.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
The key contention resolved in this judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court is that “whether the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings being Crime No.54 of 2005 on the grounds that the appellant had withdrawn an earlier complaint without assigning reasons; the transactions being commercial in nature, the ingredients of an offence under the Sections referred to above were absent; and that the remedy of the appellant lay in filing a civil suit.”
From Para 22,
There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute which debars a complainant from making a second complaint on the same allegations, when the first complaint did not lead to conviction, acquittal or discharge.
From Para 23,
when a complaint is dismissed on merits after an inquiry, that a second complaint cannot be made on the same facts. Maybe, as contended by the respondents, the first complaint was withdrawn without assigning any reason. However, that in itself is no ground to quash a second complaint.
This legal principle is called as protection from Double Jeopardy as enshrined in Article 20(2) of Constitution of India as well as 300 CrPC.
Landmark judgment cited in this judgment is available here.
In this judgment delivered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it was held that the accused be given benefit of doubt in the criminal case of 498a IPC, as the depositions of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses is either hearsay or different from what is averred in the original complaint/FIR.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Here is the case filed by Prakash Babulal Dangi at Hon’ble Supreme Court, assailing the High Court of Bombay order available here on the aspect of Multiple Maintenance to be paid. These are daily orders along with final disposal order.
From January 2018:
From March 2018;
A new case got tagged to this one in April 2018. This is pending as on 10-Apr-2020.
A new case got tagged to this one in November 2018. This was Dismissed as withdrawn.
And the grand Finale for this case in September 2019. Yippieeee!!!! The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
A 2-judge bench passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.
This is one of the persons trying to figure out why in India, menfolks are allowed to be looted not in just one law but on a myraid of laws.
From Para 11,
“In view thereof, with these clarifications that both the orders; the one passed under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and another passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., are required to be complied, both these Writ Petitions stand disposed off.“
Prakash has filed a SLP with Hon’ble Supreme Court here that got disposed off due to settlement.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or in any other law for the time being in force, when an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine by a Criminal Court in any territory to which this Code does not extend and the Court passing the sentence issues a warrant to the Collector of a district in the territories to which this Code extends, authorising him to realise the amount as if it were an arrear of land revenue, such warrant shall be deemed to be a warrant issued under clause (b) of sub- section 1 of section 421 by a Court in the territories to which this Code extends, and the provisions of sub- section (3) of the said section, as to the execution of such warrant shall apply accordingly.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
A warrant issued under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 421 by any Court may be executed within the local jurisdiction of such Court, and it shall authorise the attachment and sale of any such property outside such jurisdiction, when it is endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction such property is found.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-
In this landmark case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has struck down the following laws as being violative of Constitutional rights of Citizens.
Citation: [(2015) 5 SCC 1], [2015 COMPLJ SC 2 143], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 248], [2015 AIR SC 1523], [2015 DLT 218 370], [2015 KLJ 2 292], [2015 KERLT 2 1], [2015 KLT 2 1]
Other Sources : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b244e561097e45a4e264
Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj’s petition against use of bar fetters on him is this case, dealt by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Citation: 1978 AIR 1514, 1979 SCR (1) 512
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1518037/
A little bit of this story here and a 2017 update here.
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Bad Behavior has blocked 496 access attempts in the last 7 days.
