In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Guidelines Issued) on 31 Jan 2023

A 3-judge bench passed these directions, in relation to release of undertrial prisoners/convicts who were granted bail.

With a view to ameliorate the problems a number of directions are sought. We have examined the directions which we reproduce hereinafter with
certain modifications:
“1) The Court which grants bail to an undertrial prisoner/convict would be required to send a soft copy of the bail order by e-mail to the prisoner through the Jail Superintendent on the same day or the next day. The Jail Superintendent would be required to enter the date of grant of bail in the e-prisons software [or any other software which is being used by the Prison Department].
2) If the accused is not released within a period of 7 days from the date of grant of bail, it would be the duty of the Superintendent of Jail to inform the
Secretary, DLSA who may depute para legal volunteer or jail visiting advocate to interact with the prisoner and assist the prisoner in all ways possible for his release.
3) NIC would make attempts to create necessary fields in the e-prison software so that the date of grant of bail and date of release are entered by the Prison Department and in case the prisoner is not released within 7 days, then an automatic email can be sent to the Secretary, DLSA.
4) The Secretary, DLSA with a view to find out the economic condition of the accused, may take help of the Probation Officers or the Para Legal Volunteers to prepare a report on the socio-economic conditions of the inmate which may be placed before the concerned Court with a request to relax the condition (s) of bail/surety.
5) In cases where the undertrial or convict requests that he can furnish bail bond or sureties once released, then in an appropriate case, the Court may consider granting temporary bail for a specified period to the accused so that he can furnish bail bond or sureties.
6) If the bail bonds are not furnished within one month from the date of grant bail, the concerned Court may suo moto take up the case and consider whether the conditions of bail require modification/ relaxation.
7) One of the reasons which delays the release of the accused/ convict is the insistence upon local surety. It is suggested that in such cases, the courts
may not impose the condition of local surety.”
We order that the aforesaid directions shall be complied with.

Pravasi Legal Cell Vs Union of India and Ors on 20 Mar 2023

Posted on March 28 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Apex Court passed directions to all High Courts and States to setup online RTI portals in their respective territories…

From Paras 8-11,

8 We are of the view that such an exercise should be carried out by all the High Courts in the country no later than within a period of three months from the date of this order.
9 A certified copy of this order shall be remitted by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to all the Registrars General, who shall in turn, seek administrative directions from the learned Chief Justices for implementation.
10 The High Courts shall make adequate provisions to facilitate the supply of information through online web portals and for all incidental purposes connected with the implementation of the Right to Information Act 2005.
11 As regards the district judiciary, which is under the administrative control of the High Courts, we request all the Registrars General to take administrative directions from the Chief Justices. The High Courts may utilize the support of the National Informatics Centre for the purpose. NIC shall provide all logistical and technical assistance in that regard to the High Courts.

From Para 1 on Page 4,

1 In view of the orders which have been passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No 1325 of 2020, there shall be a direction to all the State governments/Union Territories to set up and operationalize online web portals so that information sought under the Right to Information Act 2005 is made available in respect of all public authorities falling within their jurisdiction. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order.

Pravasi Legal Cell Vs Union of India and Ors on 20 Mar 2023

Supreme Court launched it’s own RTI Portal in November 2022.

News here and here.

This was one of my PIL ideas here.

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 04 Aug 2022

Posted on March 8 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of the Apex Court held as follows regarding the important of fundamental right available to accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

From Paras 18 and 19,

18. Another important issue that merits consideration in the present appeal is that the accused-appellant, in his Section 313 statement, stated that he and the complainant belonged to opposing student parties. The accused-appellant claimed that owing to the animosity pertaining to the elections, the accused-appellant was falsely implicated in the matter. He also produced two witnesses to prove his alibi. DW1 and DW2 have stated that the accused appellant was in his village as his mother was unwell. Moreover, the accused-appellant also pointed out to the Court that the father, sister and brother of the complainant were all a part of the police department. The accused-appellant also brought to the notice of the Court the fact that the complainant had also registered another criminal case against the accused-appellant in which he already stands acquitted.

19. In the case at hand, the alternate version put forth by the appellant-accused could not be ignored. Section 313 CrPC confers a valuable right upon an accused to establish his innocence and can well be considered beyond a statutory right, as a constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.[See Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289]

From Paras 25-28,

25. In the present case, the courts below failed to scrutinize the defence version put forward by the appellant-accusedin his Section 313 statement. The object of Section 313 of the Codeis to establish a direct dialogue between the court and the accused. (See Asraf Ali v. State of Assam, (2008) 16 SCC 328)
26. The purpose of Section 313 CrPC is to provide the accused a reasonable opportunity to explain the adverse circumstances which have emerged against him during the course of trial.A reasonable opportunity entails putting all the adverse evidences in the form of questions so as to give an opportunity to the accused to articulate his defence and givehis explanation.
27. If all the circumstances are bundled together and a singleopportunity is provided to the accused to explain himself, he may not able to put forth a rational and intelligibleexplanation. Such, exercises which defeats fair opportunity are nothing but empty formality. Non-fulfilment of the true spirit of Section 313 may ultimately cause grave prejudice tothe accused and the Court may not have the benefit of all the necessary facts and circumstances to arrive at a fair conclusion.
28. Such an omission does not ipso facto vitiate the trial, unless the accused fails to prove that grave prejudice has been caused to him. Although the counsel on behalf the accused has not proved any serious prejudice caused to him due to failure of the Court in framing individual circumstances; however, considering the long pendency of the matter and the right of the accused to have a fair and expeditious trial, we propose to proceed and decide the matter on its own merit.

From Para 29,

29. It is an established principle of criminal law that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is upon the prosecution. Where an accused sets up a defence or offers an explanation, it is well-settled that he is not required to prove his defence beyond a reasonable doubt but only by preponderance of probabilities. [See M. Abbas v. State of Kerala, (2001) 10 SCC 103]. Further, it has been held by this Court in Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2020) 8 SCC 811 that “once a plausible version has been put forth in defence at the Section 313 CrPC examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate such defence plea”.

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 04 Aug 2022

Father Thomas Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 22 Dec 2010

Posted on March 4 by ShadesOfKnife

Following the landmark decision of Apex Court here, the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Para 14,

14.In Union of India v. W.N. Chaddha, 1993 Cri.L.J 859 (SC) it has been held in paragraph 93: “…….More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under S. 173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report till the process is issued under S. 204 of the Code, as the case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued. In case the issue of process is postponed as contemplated under S. 202 of the Code, the accused may attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. There are various judicial pronouncements to this effect but we feel that it is not necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same time, we would like to point out that there are certain provisions under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an opportunity of being heard under certain specified circumstances.”

From Para 29,

29.From a consideration of the aforesaid authorities, it is apparent that even when a complaint is filed under section 190(1) (a) and the Court decides to take cognizance and to adopt the procedure provided for inquiry under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, the accused is only permitted to remain present during the proceedings, but not to intervene or to raise his defence, until the order issuing summons is passed. The right of hearing of a prospective accused at the pre-cognizance stage, when only a direction for investigation by the police is issued by the Magistrate under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., can only be placed at a lower pedestal. It is only during the course of trial that the accused has been conferred rights at different stages to raise his defence. As the authorities show, that in the absence of any statutory right of hearing to the prospective accused at the pre-cognizance stage, when the direction to investigate has only been issued by the Magistrate under section 156(3), the accused cannot be conferred with any right of hearing even under any principle of audi alteram partem.

From Para 41,

41.An order under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. passed by the Magistrate directing the police officer to investigate a cognizable case on the other hand is no such order of moment, which impinges on anyvaluable rights of the party. Were any objection to the issuance of such a direction to be accepted (though it is difficult to visualize anyobjection which could result in the quashing of a simple direction for investigation), the proceedings would still not come to an end, as itwould be open to the complainant informant to move an application under section 154(3) before the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) or a superior officer under section 36 of the Code. He could also file a complaint under section 190 read with section 200 of the Code. This is the basic difference from the situations mentioned in Madhu Limaye and in Amar Nath’s cases, where acceptance of the objections could result in the said accused being discharged or the summons set aside, and the proceedings terminated. Also the direction for investigation by the Magistrate is but an incidental step in aid of investigation and trial. It is thus similar to orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, orders granting bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of pending proceedings which have been described as purely interlocutory in nature in Amar Nath (supra).

From Para 58,

58.However it is made clear that the initial order for investigation under section 156(3) is also not open to challenge in a writ petition, as it is now beyond the pale of controversy that the province of investigationby the police and the judiciary are not overlapping but complementary. As observed by the Privy Council in paragraph 37 in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 when considering the scope of the statutory powers of the police to investigate a cognizable case under sections 154 and 156 of the Code, that it would be an unfortunate result if the Courts in exercise of their inherent powers could interfere in this function of the police. The roles of the Court and police are “complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function.”

Finally, from Paras 64 and 65,

64.In this view of the matter, the Opinion of the Full bench on the three questions posed is:
65.A. The order of the Magistrate made in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C directing the police to register and investigate is not open to revision at the instance of a person against whom neither cognizance has been taken nor any process issued.
B. An order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C is an interlocutory order and remedy of revision against such order is barred under subsection (2) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
C. The view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Malviya Vs. State of U.P and others reported in 2000(41) ACC 435 that as an order made under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is amenable to revision, and no writ petition for quashing an F.I.R registered on the basis of the order will be maintainable, is not correct.

Father Thomas Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 22 Dec 2010

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77085610/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5767b120e691cb22da6d4314

Shivcharan Lal Verma and Anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 19 Feb 2002

Posted on March 2 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Supreme Court held as follows regarding validity of 498A IPC proceedings when the marriage is null and void,

From Para 2,

2. This matter had not been taken up for hearing for this length of time as the judgment of this Court holding Section 306 of the IPC to be unconstitutional, was under re-consideration by the constitution bench. The constitution bench finally disposed of the matter in criminal case No. 274 of 1984 and batch and set aside the earlier judgment of this Court and held that Section 306 is constitutionally valid. In view of the aforesaid constitution bench decision, two questions arise for consideration in this appeal. One, whether the prosecution under Section 498A can at all be attracted since the marriage with Mohini itself was null and void, the same having been performed during the lifetime of Kalindi. Second, whether the conviction under Section 306 could at all be sustained in the absence of any positive material to hold that Mohini committed suicide because of any positive act on the part of either Shiv Charan or Kalindi.

Finally,

There may be considerable force in the argument of Mr. Khanduja, learned counsel for the appellant so far as conviction under Section 498A is concerned, inasmuch as the alleged marriage with Mohini during the subsistence of valid marriage with Kalindi is null and void. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 498A of the IPC.

Citations : [2002 ACR SC 1 946], [2007 DMC SC 1 120], [2002 JT SC 2 641], [2007 SCC 15 369], [2010 SCC CRI 3 729], [2002 CRIMES SC 2 177], [2002 SUPREME 3 168], [2006 SLT 9 493], [2007 CCR 1 115]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145448/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adbae4b01497114121aa

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

Posted on December 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Earlier, this Court had issued notice to the petitioner himself to show cause that in case it was a fake institution, what was the reason or rationale for the petitioner to join the same and to continue to serve there for one year. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted that such pleadings be ignored and may not be taken into account for the purpose of disposal of the instant petition. We do not see any reason to allow a party to make a pleading in the petition and then make a submission to the court to ignore it as such an issue has no bearing on the merits of the case being totally irrelevant. Pleadings have to be true to the knowledge of the parties and in case a person takes such misleading pleadings, he can be refused not only any kind of indulgence by the court but can also be tried for perjury. In case, the pleading taken by the petitioner is true, he cannot ask for ignoring the same. In case, it is false and as such statement had been made on oath, he is liable to be tried for perjury. More so, whether such a pleading is relevant or not is a matter to be decided by the court and under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, court has a right to ask the party even relevant or irrelevant questions and the parties or their counsel cannot raise any objection to any such question.

From Para 5,

Be that as it may, this Court had insisted at the time of first round of hearing of this case that AOR, Shri Manu Shanker Mishra should remain present in the Court at the time of arguments and also passed over the matter for his appearance. In the second round, it was informed to us that the AOR refused to come to the court. We take a very serious note of the conduct of this AOR, particularly, in view of the judgment of this Court In Re: Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, (2014) 1 SCC 572, wherein this Court has categorically held that in case the AOR does not appear in the court, his conduct may tantamount to criminal contempt of the court. In fact, a very few AsOR have spoiled the working system of the institution of AsOR who simply lend their signatures for petty amount. The AOR involved herein is living in a fool’s paradise if he thinks that he can play hide and seek with any court of law.

In such a chaotic situation, any “Arzi”, “Farzi”, half- baked lawyer under the label of “proxy counsel”, a phrase not traceable under the Advocates Act, 1961 or under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 etc., cannot be allowed to abuse and misuse the process of the court under a false impression that he has a right to waste public time without any authority to appear in the court, either from the litigant or from the AOR, as in the instant case. The AOR, with impunity was disdainful towards the order of this Court directing him to appear in the court. He had also not filed any appearance for the counsel who had appeared, nor the said counsel disclosed his name. The Court takes serious note of the conduct of the AOR, Shri Manu Shanker Mishra and warns him to behave in an appropriate manner befitting the conduct of an advocate and an AOR otherwise this Court will not hesitate to take action against him. His conduct will be under close watch of this Court.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

Citations : [2014 ALLCC 84 1002], [2014 ALT CRL AP 2 242], [2014 CCR SC 2 37], [2014 COMPLJ SC 3 197], [2014 RCR CIVIL 2 285], [2014 SCALE 1 751], [2014 SCC 9 230], [2014 SCJ 4 412], [2014 SCR 1 848], [2014 UC 1 516], [2014 SCC CRI 5 21], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 67], [2014 AIOL 52], [2014 SCV 1 397], [2014 SLT 3 298], [2014 RAJ 2 401], [2014 AICLR 1 991], [2014 ALLINDCAS 135 270], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 711]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199130163/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af4ce4b0149711416146

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/sanjay-kumar-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-5665

Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022

Posted on September 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of Apex Court held as follows:

In respect of the aforesaid, it is clarified for the benefit of the parties with consent that the procedure to be followed by the Bar Council of India would be that persons who are in jobs and are desirous of taking the examination, will in advance inform the Bar Council of the factum of their employment and on being successful in the examination, an undertaking would be required that within six months they will take a call whether to resign or join the profession or they will still continue to work in their respective jobs, in which case, they would on a subsequent date being so desirous of joining the profession require to take the examination afresh and in case of resignation give proof thereof.

Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022

This is a connected matter to the Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors matter (pending from 2008)

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Posted on September 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full Bench of the Apex Court held as follows regarding a query, whether a PoA Holder can file a complaint u/s 200 CrPC in a NI Act case.

From Para 26,

26) While holding that there is no serious conflict between the decisions in MMTC (supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner:
(i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of N.I Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent.
(ii) The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint.
However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.
(iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case.
(iv) In the light of section 145 of N.I Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
(v) The functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to another person.

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Citations: [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 44], [2013 SCALE 11 360], [2013 KERLT 4 21], [2014 AIR SC 630], [2014 CALLT SC 1 53], [2014 PLJR 1 216], [2013 OLR 2 884], [2013 BC 4 212], [2013 CTC 5 560], [2014 SCC 11 790], [2013 CLA SC 117 4], [2013 COMPCAS SC 180 258], [2014 AKR 1 314], [2013 KLJ 4 279], [2014 LW 1 698], [2013 PLR 4 733], [2013 NCC 2 854], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 649], [2013 KHC 3 885], [2013 WLN SC 4 25], [2013 ALLCC 83 583], [2014 LW CRL 1 154], [2014 SCC CIV 4 343], [2013 SUPREME 6 705], [2014 CRLJ SC 576], [2013 AIOL 611], [2013 JT 12 524], [2013 SLT 8 133], [2014 DCR SC 1 135], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 839], [2013 AIC 131 160], [2014 ECRN 1 486], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 307], [2013 JCC NI SC 4 214], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 382], [2014 JLJR SC 1 48], [2013 BOMCR SC 6 424], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 306], [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 4048], [2013 MLJ CRL 4 213]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47858029/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ae4b0149711415b31

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/a-c-narayanan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-4779

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors

Posted on July 20, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

2022-07-19

From Para 4,

4. Until further orders, there shall be an ad-interim stay of the common impugned judgment and final order dated 23rd March, 2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petitions No.48367/2018 and 50089/2018 and further proceedings in relation to Special C.C. No. 356 of 2017 arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 19/2017, pending before the Additional City and Sessions and Special Court for cases under the POCSO Act, Bangalore.

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 19 Jul 2022

The Karnataka HC decision is here.

Madras High Court Advocates Association Vs Dr.A.S.Anand, Honble The C.J.I. on 12 May 2001

Posted on June 26, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Apex Court passed scathing remarks regards litigants who lie with impunity in their affidavits filed into the Court.

This case is also called as Re: Suo Moto Proceedings Against MR. R, KARUPPAN, ADVOCATE Vs Unknown.

From Para 15,

15. Court are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences committed against the society. The courts are further expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying upon the false evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is depended upon the statement of facts. if the result of the proceedings are to be respected, these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in accordance with the truth. The purity of proceedings of the court cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence inspired by extraneous considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy.

17. In India, law relating to the offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, incorporated to deal with the offences relating to giving false evidence against public justice. The offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial system. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, concededly let lose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. If the system is to service, effective action is the need of the time. The present case is no exception to the general practice being followed by many of the litigants in the country.

18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the record of proceedings in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.5 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.77 of 2001, we are prima facie satisfied that the respondent herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition (for the purposes of being used in the judicial proceedings, i.e. writ petition), has wrongly made a statement that the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand has not been determined by the President of India in terms of-Article 217 of the constitution. We are satisfied that such a statement supported by an affricative of the respondent was known to him to be false which he believed to be false and/or atleast did not believe to be true. It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC. The respondent herein, being legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC.

19. With the object of eradicating the evil of perjury, we empower the Registrar General of this Court to depute an officer of the rank of Deputy Registrar or above of the Court to file a complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent herein, before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi. Such officer is directed to file such complaint and take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint.

Madras High Court Advocates Association Vs Dr.A.S.Anand, Honble The C.J.I. on 12 May 2001

Citations : [2001 OLR 2 188], [2001 SCC 5 289], [2001 SCALE 4 199], [2001 SUPREME 4 108], [2001 JT SUPP 1 332], [2001 CGLJ 2 499], [2001 CRLJ SC 2611], [2001 SCR 3 750], [2001 AIR SC 2204], [2001 LW 3 61], [2001 SCC CRI 876], [2001 AIR SCW 2104]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1356442/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad9be4b0149711411d8a

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision

In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Guidelines Issued) on 31 Jan 2023

Pravasi Legal Cell Vs Union of India and Ors on 20 Mar 2023

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 04 Aug 2022

Father Thomas Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 22 Dec 2010

Shivcharan Lal Verma and Anr Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 19 Feb 2002

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Hrishikesh Sahoo Vs State of Karnataka and Ors

Madras High Court Advocates Association Vs Dr.A.S.Anand, Honble The C.J.I. on 12 May 2001