Search Judgments

The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 15(1)(a) – Civil Revision Petition – This case involves a civil revision petition filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.36 of 2021, pending in the Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. The core issue revolves around the inheritance of property originally purchased by Kamalammal in 1955 and whether her husband, Kasthuri Naidu, was the rightful heir after her death in 2013.

The petitioners argued that the present suit is an abuse of the legal process, referring to a prior suit (O.S.No.1407 of 2015) where the plaint was rejected, establishing that the husband of Kamalammal could not inherit the property in the presence of her father’s legal heirs. The respondent argued that the earlier rejection order does not bind him as he was not a party to the application.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Sections 8(c), 22(C), 29(1), 42, 50, 52, 52A and 57  – This criminal appeal challenges the judgment in C.C.No.92 of 2020, where the appellant was convicted for offenses under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(C), 8(c) r/w 22(C), and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to imprisonment and fines. The prosecution’s case was based on the seizure of MDMA tablets, LSD stamps, Methamphetamine, and Ganja from the appellant and co-accused.

The appellant contended that statutory conditions under Sections 42, 50, 52, 52A, and 57 of the NDPS Act were violated. Key arguments included the failure to examine independent public witnesses despite the public nature of the location, the use of an uncertified personal laptop and printer to create seizure documents, a composite notice under Section 50, the failure to take samples in the presence of a Magistrate as required by Section 52A, and a break in the chain of custody of the seized contraband.

Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 132 & 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b), 135(1)(c), 135(1)(d) read with Section 120B of IPC – The petitioner sought to quash prosecution initiated under the Customs Act, alleging offenses related to duty evasion by mis-declaration of export goods description and value addition to obtain duty-free gold bars under a replenishment scheme. The prosecution stemmed from a show-cause notice that was later adjudicated, with the adjudicating authority initially confirming the allegations.

However, the CESTAT, Hyderabad, allowed the petitioner’s appeal and set aside the order of the adjudicating authority. The Department’s appeal against the CESTAT order was dismissed by the High Court of Telangana, affirming that there was no infirmity in the CESTAT’s order.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 450, 394 r/w 397; Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 207, 208, 209, 313(1)(b) – This criminal appeal was filed against a judgment convicting the appellant under Sections 450 and 394 r/w 397 of the IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with other accused, committed robbery at the defacto complainant’s pawn shop, resulting in injuries to the complainant and his wife. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of the complainant’s wife (PW1) and a fingerprint expert (PW5).

The appellant argued that PW1 was not an eyewitness and that the fingerprint evidence was inadmissible because the fingerprints were not legally collected.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii); Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 – Section 4 – This Criminal Original Petition was filed to quash the final report against the petitioners for offences under the IPC and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The allegation stems from a neighborhood dispute involving attacks with sticks and knives.

The petitioners argued that the police investigation was flawed, violating PSO 566 and guidelines established in the T.Balaji case, as a counter-complaint filed by the first petitioner was not properly considered.

The prosecution acknowledged the existence of the counter-complaint (Crime No.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528 & Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 – The case involves an appeal against a Bombay High Court order that dismissed an application to quash an FIR filed under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 507 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2 against the Appellant, alleging rape based on a false promise of marriage. The complainant alleged that the physical relationship occurred between 2022 and 2024.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 498-A & Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 372 & Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005- Section 12 & 2(a) – This judgment addresses an appeal against the acquittal of an elderly husband (Accused No. 1) who was initially convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC for subjecting his wife (P.W.1) to cruelty. The wife also filed revision petitions under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking maintenance and protection. The trial court convicted the husband, but the first appellate court reversed the decision.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 376(1), 417, 506(ii) – This criminal appeal was filed to challenge the judgment in S.C.No.242 of 2019, where the appellant was convicted for offenses under Sections 376(1) (rape), 417 (cheating), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The prosecution’s case was based on a complaint by the victim, alleging that the appellant had sexual relations with her under the false promise of marriage.

The appellant argued that the relationship was consensual, and the victim, being an educated adult, was fully aware of the consequences. He contended that they were in a loving relationship, and the victim continued to meet him despite the alleged forceful act.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 106 and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 21(1) – The petitioner filed writ petitions to quash letters from the third respondent (Banks), seeking to defreeze accounts maintained by the petitioner, based on instructions from the second respondent (Police).

The petitioner’s husband, a quarry owner, was accused of offences under Sections 105, 125, 125(a), 303(2) of BNSS, 2023 and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, following a fatal accident at his quarry and subsequent discovery of illegal mining. The police directed the banks to freeze the petitioner’s accounts, suspecting the funds to be proceeds of the crime.

The petitioner argued that freezing the accounts under Section 106 of BNSS, which corresponds to Section 102 Cr.P.C, was illegal, as the funds were neither stolen property nor did their presence create suspicion of an offence.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 420 & Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) – This criminal appeal challenges the judgment in C.C.No.27 of 2005, where the appellant, Kumar Deshraj, was convicted under Section 420 of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case originated from allegations that, as an Assistant Treasurer at the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the appellant colluded with others to encash deliberately cut currency notes, causing a loss to the RBI.

The prosecution argued that the appellant violated RBI Note Refund Rules, 1975 by accepting these notes. The appellant contended that no rules were violated as the required portion of each note was present, and there was no proof of dishonest intent or pecuniary advantage to him.