AP High Court has issued Status Quo on the Petition by Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi here. Promptly, State of AP filed SLP at Supreme Court.
On 2020-08-17:
CJI Bobde recused himself from hearing. Not before me.
On 2020-08-19:
Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman recused himself from hearing. Not before me.
On 2020-08-26:
SLP dismissed. Om Shanti…
Gazette from President of India regd Formation of High Court of Andhra Pradesh here.
Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi filed this WP with the following prayers
On 2020-08-04: High Court granted 10 days time to file Counter.
On 2020-08-14: Common Counter Filed by State. High Court ordered to file one paperbook from either side with Registrar Judicial via email id, [[email protected]]. Status Quo Maintained.
On 2020-08-27:
Status Quo Maintained. Adjourned to Sep 21st 2020
On 2020-09-21:
More time is given to file Counter-affidavits.
On 2020-10-06:
Multiple IAs are various subjects
On 2020-11-02:
Since Government agreed not to shift the Corporation offices which were already situated outside Amaravati region, the two IAs were closed as no need for adjudication arises.
The bozo team went to Supreme Court here. Another set of Reddys team filed another SLP at SC and get facepalm here.
In this Suo Moto Criminal Writ Petition, Supreme Court took up the cause upon itself and issue directions, one of which is constitution of Special Court to prosecute cases under POCSO Act.
Action taken by Andhra Pradesh Government:
The Recent Order is from March… after which no update (Not brought before a bench even though the Order clearly says so.
Single-Judge bench held the importance of fair investigation by Investigating officer. And more importantly, advised as following, wrt sec 166A(b), which I elaborated here:
The complainant/victim of a crime may accordingly apply to the Judicial Magistrate, empowered to take cognizance of the offences in question on police report, for monitoring of investigation who can issue appropriate directions for expeditious completion of investigation. The complainant/ victim of a crime may also file complaint under section 166A (b) of the IPC against the Investigating Officer for knowingly disobeying, any direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation. In view of explanation to Section 197 (1) of the Cr.P.C. no sanction is required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under Section 166 A of the IPC. The complainant/victim of a crime may alternatively file petition in the High Court for transfer of investigation to an independent agency such as CBI etc.. However, it may be observed here that in substantial number of such cases the complainant/victim of a crime is not able to pursue these remedies due to lack of awareness and legal aid at the initial stages.
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required:
Provided that no
shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.
(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.
This is the wonderful judgment from Punjab and Haryana High Court. Very good for lawyers and law students alike.
This is what is mentioned by Hon’ble Judge on first page itself. This is just beginning.
The language of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though is as simple as it could have been, yet seems to have fallen pray to the fear of ‘unknown’ in its applied interpretations. That ‘unknown’ is the fear arising out of a demon of the Indian system of administration of criminal justice, called the ‘FIR’. This fear is so pervasive that it starts showing its effect even before the ‘FIR’ comes into being, and continues to haunt a person even after he is acquitted of the charge leveled in ‘FIR’.
Entire Complaint filing and cognizance taking upon such complaint is detailed elaborately further.
Daughter-in-law launched a pressure tactic (supreme court’s words) against her in-laws and husband but had to eat dirt in the end. Since the complaint was filed after more than limitation period of 3 years, the 498A case was quashed.
Trivia: No launching of criminal proceedings for filing a false case.
Citations :
Other Sources :
When any person is arrested and interrogated by the police, he shall be entitled to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.
Every police officer while making an arrest shall—
(a) bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will facilitate easy identification;
(b) prepare a memorandum of arrest which shall be—
(i) attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made;
(ii) countersigned by the person arrested; and
(c) inform the person arrested, unless the memorandum is attested by a member of his family, that he has a right to have a relative or a friend named by him to be informed of his arrest.
(1) The police officer shall], in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.
(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice.
Bad Behavior has blocked 2495 access attempts in the last 7 days.
