Search Judgments

Maintenance and Welfare of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Sections 2(h), 22, 23, and 24 – This case concerns an appeal against a High Court judgment that overturned orders passed by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Authority, which had directed the respondent (the appellant’s son) to vacate properties owned by the appellant, a senior citizen.

The appellant, an 80-year-old man, sought maintenance and eviction of his son from two properties in Mumbai, as the son was preventing him from residing there. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the appellant, ordering the son to hand over possession and pay monthly maintenance. The Appellate Authority upheld this decision.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 147, 148, 294B, 341, 324, 302, and 506(ii) – The case involves appeals against a judgment by the Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, concerning a murder. The prosecution’s case was that the accused, related to the deceased, attacked him following a dispute over laying a pipeline from a common well. The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 147, 148, 294B, 341, 324, 302, and 506(ii).

The prosecution presented 17 witnesses and several exhibits.

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Sections 14, 17, 29, 30 and 32; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS Act) – Section 223 – This case involves a petition to quash a private complaint filed under Section 223 of the BNSS Act, alleging offenses under Sections 237, 303, 316(1)(5), and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 against bank officials involved in SARFAESI Act proceedings. The complainant, a borrower, claimed that the bank sold a secured property for a lesser amount through e-auction, suspecting collusion, and without taking possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

The petitioners, bank officials, argued that the complaint was an abuse of process as the borrower did not challenge the sale under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The court noted that the sale under Chapter-III of the SARFAESI Act was not challenged, and merely alleging a lower sale price does not automatically constitute an offense.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 366, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – Section 6, and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 – Section 9 – This criminal appeal challenges the trial court’s judgment convicting the appellant under Section 366 of the IPC, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution’s case was that the accused kidnapped and married a minor girl, resulting in sexual intercourse and pregnancy.

The appellant argued that the victim’s age was not proven, and the relationship was consensual. The court focused on whether the prosecution had adequately proven the victim’s age as per Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, noting that the school certificate provided was not a valid document under the Act.

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 Section 9, and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) Section 5(j)(ii), 6 and 17; The constitutional duty under Article 51-A (e) and (k) – This Criminal Revision Case challenged an order rejecting the petitioners’ request to relax the condition of daily appearance before the police, related to offences under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Trial Court had initially imposed the condition due to the gravity of the offences and the petitioners’ involvement in a child marriage.

The High Court noted an inconsistency where the Trial Court had relaxed the condition for one accused but not for the petitioners.

The court emphasized the importance of preventing child marriages, highlighting that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, criminalizes participation and abetment of such marriages.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 Sections 189(2), 221, 126(2), and 223 – This case involves a Criminal Original Petition filed to quash FIR No. 721 of 2024, registered at Vaniyambadi Town Police Station against the petitioner and others. The FIR alleges offences under Sections 189(2), 221, 126(2), and 223 of the BNS, stemming from an incident where the petitioner and others allegedly protested in front of the police station, obstructing public access and police duties, after lodging a complaint against an individual.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR’s allegations do not constitute any offense, making the prosecution a futile exercise.

The Negotiable Instruments Act Sections 138 and 147; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 63 and 65 – The case revolves around a Criminal Revision Case filed against an order dismissing a petition to accept a xerox copy of a cheque as secondary evidence in STC No. 476 of 2016, a case filed under Sections 138 and 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner claimed the original cheque was lost by his former advocate after it was initially produced and verified by the Trial Court during the recording of the sworn statement. The respondent contested, arguing the loss wasn’t sufficiently proven.