High Court of Madras Vs B Sathish Kumar and Ors on 27 Aug 2021
Month: August 2021
Rakesh and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 13 Aug 2014
A division bench of Apex Court held as follows
From Para 2, Issue was fixed.
2. Whether a Magistrate after accepting a negative final report submitted by the Police can take action on the basis of the protest petition filed by the complainant/first informant? The above question having been answered in the affirmative by the Allahabad High Court, this appeal has been filed by the accused.
From Para 7, issue was answered.
Rakesh and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 13 Aug 20147. If we are to go back to trace the genesis of the views expressed by this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma (supra), notice must be had of the decision of this Court in H.S. Bains vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) 3 wherein it was held that after receipt of the police report under Section 173, the Magistrate has three options –
“(1) he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action;
(2) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1)(b) on the basis of the police report and issue process; this he may do without being bound in any manner by the conclusion arrived at by the police in their report;
(3) he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. If he adopts the third alternative, he may hold or direct an inquiry under Section 202 if he thinks fit. Thereafter he may dismiss the complaint or issue process, as the case may be.”
8. The second and third options available to the Magistrate as laid down in H.S. Bains (supra) has been referred to and relied upon in subsequent decisions of this Court to approve the action of the Magistrate in accepting the final report and at the same time in proceeding to treat either the police report or the initial complaint as the basis for further action/enquiry in the matter of the allegations levelled therein.
Citations : [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 52], [2014 MPWN SC 3 73], [2014 AIR SC 3509], [2014 SCALE 9 347], [2014 AIOL 490], [2014 CRIMES SC 4 183], [2014 CRLJ SC 4195], [2014 JLJR SC 4 16], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 4 643], [2014 SUPREME 7 286], [2014 SLT 7 183], [2014 SCC 13 133], [2014 SCC CRI 5 611], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 619], [2014 AIC 142 75], [2014 ACR SC 3 3091], [2014 UC 3 1651], [2014 ALLCC 87 299], [2014 SCJ 9 159], [2014 ALT CRL AP 3 531], [2014 ALLMR CRI SC 3782], [2014 AJR 4 387], [2015 LW CRL 1 229], [2014 CCR SC 3 577], [2014 PLJR 4 176], [2014 MLJ CRL SC 4 113], [2014 ALL LJ 6 82]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/118305084/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af4be4b0149711416134
Gauri Devi Vs State of J&K on 13 Aug 2021
Gauri Devi Vs State of J&K on 13 Aug 2021
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/142250936/
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs UOI and Anr on 03 Sep 2019
Sri Ashwini Upadhyay ji filed this PIL at Delhi HC seeking the following prayers, which got dismissed saying that there is no public interest in this petition and the prayers are in the realm of Legislature but not Judiciary.
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay Vs UOI and Anr on 03 Sep 2019a) direct the Union of India to ascertain the feasibility of implementing 24th recommendation of National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Justice Venkatchaliah Commission) on Population Control;
b) declare that State may set Two Child Norm, as a criteria for government jobs, aids and subsidies, and, may withdraw statutory rights viz. right to vote, right to contest, right to property, right to free shelter, right to free legal aid etc.;
c) direct the Government to declare First Sunday of every month as ‘Health Day’ in place of ‘Polio Day’ to spread awareness on population explosion and provide contraceptive pill, condoms, vaccines etc. to EWS and BPL families, with polio vaccines;
d) in the alternative, direct the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive Report on Population Explosion within three months and suggest the ways to control it; and,
e) direct the Government of India to take appropriate and reasoned steps on petitioner’s Representation dated 2.5.2018 within three months;
f) pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and allow the cost of the petition to petitioner.
Atul Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 23 Aug 2021
Single judge of Delhi High Court held that issuance of a legal notice and filing of a complaint case by the petitioner would NOT amount to ‘abetment’ punishable under Section 306 IPC.
From Para 11, Issue framed.
11. The issue involved when narrowed down is whether issuance of a legal notice and filing of a complaint case by the petitioner would amount to ‘abetment’ punishable under Section 306 IPC.
From Para 31,
Atul Kumar Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 23 Aug 202131. The deceased had felt harassed but, in these facts, the act of petitioner could not be held to have abetted the deceased in committing suicide. The filing of a criminal complaint by the petitioner was his legal recourse, as advised to him.
Article 25 – Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law—
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.
Y. Sulochana Rani Vs Union of India (Seeking Shared Parenting)
Y. Sulochana Rani Vs Union of India on 20 Apr 2021
News:
https://www.barandbench.com/news/absence-of-joint-parentage-violates-fundamental-rights-plea-in-sc-challenges-laws-on-custody-guardianship-of-children
https://www.barandbench.com/news/does-absence-of-joint-parentage-violate-fundamental-rights-supreme-court-notice-in-challenge-to-laws-on-custody-childre
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-issues-notice-on-plea-challenging-provisions-allowing-exclusive-custody-of-child-to-one-of-the-parents-149243
