Search Judgments

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 6, 29; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 164; Constitution of India – Article 20(1) – This appeal challenged the conviction and 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of the 1st accused under Sections 5(l) and 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old minor victim, leading to her pregnancy. The victim’s parents belonged to a Scheduled Caste community.

The appellant contended that it was a love affair and the victim, P.W.2, later resiled during cross-examination, denying the allegations.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 –  Reference to Indian Arbitration Act. This appeal challenged a High Court order dismissing a petition to quash an FIR lodged against the appellants concerning a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) from 2010. The FIR alleged criminal breach of trust, cheating, and forgery, claiming false representation about land title, non-return of Rs. 1 Crore security, and submission of forged documents.

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 20 Rule 18 – Hindu Law – The Indian Evidence Act Section 106 – The plaintiff initiated a partition suit for joint family properties, including Schedules II, III, and IV, against his father (Defendant 1, the Kartha) and siblings. Defendant 1 had alienated Schedule II property to Defendant 4 and Schedule III property to Defendant 5, citing ‘legal necessity’.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit for partial partition. However, the Lower Appellate Court granted a preliminary decree for partition of Schedules III & IV, while upholding the alienation of Schedule II, accepting the plea of legal necessity.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 294(b), 307, 323, 324, 326. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 357 – This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that modified the sentence of two private respondents (accused) convicted for causing grievous, life-threatening stab injuries to a victim due to previous enmity. The Trial Court convicted them under IPC Sections 307, 326, and 324, sentencing them to three years rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 5,000 fine each, which was affirmed by the District Sessions Fast Track Mahila Court.

The Constitution of India Article 226 – The Societies Registration Act, 1860 – The Supreme Court examined the allotment of two super deluxe flats by the Haryana Urban Estate and Town and Country Planning Employees Welfare Organization (HEWO), registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The appellant, an eligible member, challenged the allotments made to a governing body member (Respondent 3) and his subordinate (Respondent 4), citing nepotism and ineligibility.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed the appellant’s petition. However, the Supreme Court affirmed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable against HEWO, given its government land allocation, membership of government employees, and ex officio government officers on its Governing Body, mandating principles of fairness and transparency.

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), specifically Section 2(30) (definition of ‘owner’) and Section 50 (transfer of ownership) – The appellant (plaintiff), a stage carriage operator, sold a bus to the respondent (defendant) in December 2019. Despite receiving full consideration and handing over the vehicle, the respondent failed to transfer its ownership. Subsequently, the appellant received summons in multiple motor accident claim petitions (MCOPs) as the vehicle’s registered owner, prompting this suit.

The appellant sought a declaration of non-ownership, a mandatory injunction for ownership transfer, and compensation.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Constitution of India – The Supreme Court considered a Criminal Appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s bail grant to Mazahar Khan (Respondent No. 2).

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) – Section 166 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, filed by an insurance company, contested the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The case stemmed from a December 2006 accident leading to Janarthanan’s death, for which his wife, son, and mother (petitioners) had sought compensation. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 48,30,312/-.

Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (Act No. XL of 1998) – Section 128(1)(b) and 128(2) – The petitioner sought mandamus against the Greater Chennai Corporation for the removal of an illegal religious structure (Mother Velankanni shrine) obstructing his property’s entrance and a public pathway. The shrine, with an illegal electricity connection, was erected on a public road, causing inconvenience. Despite the petitioner’s complaint, no action was initially taken.

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act), as amended by Act 43 of 2016 – Sections 2(9)(D), 53, and 62 – The judgment concerns two Criminal Revision Cases challenging the dismissal of discharge petitions. Accused No.1 (a partnership firm), Accused No.2 (its Managing Partner), and Accused No.3 (a dormant partner) face prosecution under the PBPT Act for alleged suspicious cash deposits of Rs. 68.71 Crores post-demonetisation without legitimate sources.

Accused 1 and 2 argued that the deposits were legitimate business turnover and that the complaint lacked specific averments to establish vicarious liability for the Managing Partner (A2) under Section 62.