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High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings being Crime No.54 of 2005 on the grounds that the appellant had withdrawn an earlier complaint without assigning reasons; the transactions being commercial in nature, the ingredients of an offence under the Sections referred to above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 Maybe, as contended by the respondents, the first complaint was withdrawn without assigning any reason.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.
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 This was Dismissed as withdrawn.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 The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.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.
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”]
In this Apex Court judgment, Right of Prisoner against Solitary Confinement was held to be part of Article 21 of Constitution
Citation: 1978 AIR 1675, 1979 SCR (1) 392
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162242/
[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”]
In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, prisoners too have the right to be interviewed and journalist can seek permission to interview prisoners and adhere to Rules of Prison Manual while recording the interview.
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
DUTT, M.M. (J)
citations: JT 1988 (3) 15, AIR 1983 SC 378
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6004/
[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”]
In this landmark judgment bu Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that even prisoners has right to free legal aid. It was a terrible act of a jail warder, who practiced torture and sustained serious anal injury because a rod was driven into that aperture to inflict inhuman torture and that as the bleeding had not stopped, he was removed to the jail hospital and later to the Irvin Hospital.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
PATHAK, R.S.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
citations: 1980 AIR 1579, 1980 SCR (2) 557
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/778810/
[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”]
In this landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that “We have already extracted a passage from the judgment of Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois (1), where the learned judge pointed out that “life” in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U. S. Constitution corresponding to Art. 21, means not merely the right to the continuance of a person’s animal existence, but a right to the possession of each of his organs-his arms and legs etc. We do not entertain any doubt that the word “’life” in Art. 21 bears the same signification.”
In our view cl. (b) of Regulation 236 is plainly violative of Art. 21’ and as there is no “law” on which the same could be justified it must be struck down as unconstitutional.
This petition raises a question of far-reaching importance. namely, a right of a citizen of India to lead a free life subject to social control imposed by valid law. The fact that the question has been raised at the instance of an alleged disreputable character shall not be allowed to deflect our perspective. If the police could do what they did to the petitioner, they could also do the same to an honest and law-abiding citizen.
Let us at the outset clear the ground. We are not concerned here with a law imposing restrictions on a bad character, for admittedly there is no such law. Therefore, the petitioner’s fundamental right, if any, has to be judged on the basis that there is no such law. To state it differently, what fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed by the acts of the police? If he has any fundamental right which has been infringed by such acts, he would be entitled to a relief straight away, for the State could not justify it on the basis of any law made by the appropriate Legislature or the rules made thereunder.
Discussion around infringement of both Articles 19 and 21
At this stage it will be convenient to ascertain the scope of the said two provisions and their relation inter se in the context of the question raised. Both of them are distinct fundamental rights. No doubt the expression “personal liberty” is a comprehensive one and the right to move freely is an attribute of personal liberty. It is said that the freedom to move freely is carved out of personal liberty and, therefore, the expression “personal liberty” in Art. 21 excludes that attribute. In our view, this is not a correct approach. Both are independent fundamental rights, though there is overlapping. There is no question of one being carved out of another. The fundamen. tal right of life and personal liberty have many attributes and some of them are found in Art. 19. If a Person’s fundamental right under Art. 21 is infringed, the State can rely upon a law to sustain the action; but that cannot be a complete answer unless the said law satisfies the test laid down in Art. 19 (2) so far as the attributes covered by Art. 19 (1) are concerned. In other words, the State must satisfy that both the fundamental rights are not infringed by showing that there is a law and that it does amount -to a reasonable restriction. within the meaning of Art. 19 (2) of the Constitution. But in this case no such defence is available, as admittedly there is no such law. So the petitioner can legitimately plead that his fundamental rights both under Art. 19 (1) (d) and Art. 21 are infringed by the State.
Discussion around Article 21
We would, therefore, define the right of personal liberty in Art. 21 as a right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures. If so understood, all the acts of surveillance under,Regulation 236 infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Art. 21 of the Constitution.
Citation: 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/619152/
The index page is here.
In this judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that “When there are two interpretations, one wide and unconstitutional, the other narrower but within constitutional bounds, this Court will read down the overflowing expressions to make them valid. So read, the two regulations are more restricted than counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon us. Regulation 855, in our view, empowers surveillance only of persons against whom reasonable materials exist to induce the opinion that they show a determination, to lead it life of criminal in this context being confined to such as involve public peace or security only and if they are dangerous security risks. Mere Convictions in criminal cases where nothing gravely imperilling saftey of society cannot be regarded as warranting surveillance under this Regulation. Similarly, domiciliary visits and picketing by the police should be reduced to the clearest cases of danger to community security and not routine follow-up at the end of a conviction or release from prison or at the whim of a police officer. In truth, legality apart, these regulations ill-accord with the essence of personal freedoms and the State will do well to revise the- se old police regulations verging perilously near unconstitutionality.”
Citation: 1975 AIR 1378, 1975 SCR (3) 946
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/436241/
[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 2586 access attempts in the last 7 days.
