Search Judgments

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3 and Section 18; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court order that granted anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 1, who was accused of offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the appellant-complainant, alleging that the accused, along with others, abused and assaulted him and his family members because they did not vote as the accused desired in the assembly elections.

The FIR stated that the accused used casteist slurs like “Mangtyano,” assaulted the complainant with iron rods, and threatened to burn their house.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138, 141, 142 – The appeals concern the validity of a notice issued under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the amount demanded in the notice differed from the amount for which the cheque was originally issued. The High Court of Delhi quashed the criminal complaint filed under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the NI Act, holding the notice invalid due to the discrepancy in the amounts. The appellant argued that the incorrect amount in the notice was a typographical error, but the court rejected this argument.

The key issue was the interpretation of the phrase “said amount of money” in Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) – This case involves an appeal against a High Court order that partly allowed appeals against a Trial Court’s conviction and sentence under the NDPS Act. The High Court set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial, directing the accused to remain in judicial custody. The prosecution’s case relies on a search and seizure operation where Ganja was recovered. The Trial Court convicted two accused, relying on video recordings of the raid and oral evidence.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 read with Section 141 and Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) – Section 22 and 22A – The appellant filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondent company and its directors due to dishonored cheques issued as part payment for supplies. The accused sought to recall the summons, claiming protection under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), as the company was declared “sick” by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), with a restraint order on asset disposal.

The Magistrate rejected the recall application, but the revisional court reversed, discharging the accused. The High Court upheld the revisional court’s decision.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) Section 26-E ; Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act) Section 12 and 13 – This writ petition was filed to quash letters from the 3rd respondent requesting the petitioner bank not to auction the jewels of the 5th respondent and to produce keys of immovable properties for inspection, in connection with criminal proceedings under the BUDS Act. The petitioner bank contended that the 5th respondent defaulted on a loan of Rs. 13 Crores, secured by mortgaged properties. The bank initiated auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act after taking possession of the properties.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 175(3) & 175(4) – This criminal revision case was filed to challenge an order from the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, directing the 2nd respondent to investigate a case under section 175(3) of the BNSS. The 1st respondent alleged forgery and fraudulent property registration by the petitioners. The Magistrate directed the 3rd respondent to investigate, leading to an FIR being filed under sections 468, 471, 419, and 420 of the IPC against the petitioners and others.

The petitioners argued that the 1st respondent did not comply with section 175(3) of BNSS by directly filing the petition after receiving a CSR (Community Service Register).

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 142 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court order upholding the summoning of the appellants by lower courts in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The core issue is whether the Trial Court could have issued summons when the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of 30 days.

The appellants argued that while Section 142 provides for condonation of delay, it requires a proper application with reasons for the delay, which was absent. The respondent contended that the delay of five days was condonable, and the application was inadvertently not attached but is pending before the Trial Court.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 306 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) – Section 3(2)(v) – The case revolves around the suicide of Sarika, who set herself on fire following a series of altercations with her neighbor, Geeta (the appellant). The deceased alleged that Geeta and her family members harassed and abused her, including casteist remarks, leading to her extreme distress.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 306 IPC but acquitted her of the SC/ST Act offence, reducing the sentence for Section 306 from five to three years.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 498-A; BNS 2023 Section 85 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld the conviction of the appellant (mother-in-law) under Section 498-A of the IPC. The appellant’s son’s wife died within a year of marriage, leading to allegations of dowry harassment. The complainant, the deceased’s father, alleged that his daughter was found dead in her matrimonial home and suspected foul play, stating his daughter had mentioned sarcastic comments from her mother-in-law regarding dowry.

The trial court acquitted the father-in-law and brother-in-law but convicted the appellant under Section 498-A based on the testimony of the deceased’s mother and brother, who claimed the deceased had informed them of dowry harassment.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 499, 500, 501; Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) – Section 13(2), 13(4), 32 – This case involves appeals against a High Court judgment that rejected applications to quash a complaint filed against officers of the Bank of Baroda. The complaint alleged defamation under Sections 499, 500, and 501 of the IPC, stemming from an allegedly inflated amount in a possession notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, due to the clerical error.

The key issues were whether the officers could be prosecuted without the bank itself being named as an accused and whether vicarious liability could be applied under the IPC in the absence of a specific statutory provision. The court considered the statutory protection offered under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act for actions taken in good faith.