Search Judgments

The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2012 Section 3and 9; Protection of Children from sexual offence (POCSO) Act, 2012 Section 29 and 30; Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 366 & SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(w)(i)

This appeal challenges the judgment in Spl. S.C. No. 271 of 2023, where the appellant was convicted under Section 366 of IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, Section 9 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2012, and Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST Act.

Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (EC Act) Section 3 & Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) Section 51(E) – The case concerns the death of an employee, Shahu Sampatrao Jadhavar, who was a watchman at a sugar factory. He died in a motorcycle accident while commuting to work, approximately 5 km away from the factory. His family filed a claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The employer and the insurance company argued that the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment as it occurred outside the factory premises.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138; Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – Section 200 & 482 – The case revolves around an appeal against a High Court order that overturned a Trial Court’s decision to allow an amendment to a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant sought to correct a typographical error in the complaint, changing “Desi Ghee (milk products)” to “milk,” arguing it was a genuine mistake. The respondents opposed the amendment, claiming it altered the nature of the complaint and was an attempt to evade GST liability.

The Trial Court initially allowed the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 147, 163A, 166 – This appeal addresses whether the family of a deceased brother of a vehicle owner, who died in an accident caused by a tyre burst, can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company argued that the driver’s (deceased) negligence absolved them of liability and that the policy only covered a limited amount for injury/death to the owner/driver.

The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 25,82,000, but the High Court reduced it to Rs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163A, 166, 173 – This case involves appeals by two insurance companies challenging a High Court order that awarded compensation to the dependents of a deceased truck driver. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had initially dismissed the claim, but the High Court overturned this, awarding a lump sum of Rs. 15 lakhs with interest. The accident occurred in 2006 when the deceased’s truck was hit by a dumper.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 163A & 173 – The case involves appeals by two Insurance Companies against a High Court order that overturned a tribunal’s dismissal of a compensation claim and awarded Rs. 15 lakhs with interest to the dependents of the deceased, Surender Singh, who died in a road accident involving a truck he was driving and a dumper.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had initially dismissed the claim, stating failure to prove rash and negligent act. The High Court reversed this, awarding compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 2(wa), 372, 374, 378 (BNSS 2023 Section 2(y), 413) – This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, which dismissed the appellant’s appeal as not maintainable under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC. The central legal question is whether the appellant falls under the definition of “victim” in Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, or if Section 378 of the CrPC applies.

The appellant, Asian Paints Limited, filed the appeal after the acquittal of the respondent, who was accused of selling counterfeit products infringing on the appellant’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protected under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957. The High Court held that an appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC cannot challenge an order passed in an appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 482 – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Settlement in Commercial Disputes – One Time Settlement (OTS): Criminal proceedings, particularly those arising from commercial disputes, can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where the dispute has been fully and finally settled through a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme, and the complainant bank has received all outstanding dues and issued no-dues certificates, thereby indicating no surviving public interest in continuing the prosecution.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR/Proceedings – Parity: Where criminal proceedings initiated by an investigating agency (e.g., CBI) based on the same set of transactions have been quashed against co-accused due to a settlement, and such quashing has been upheld by the Supreme Court, similar relief should be extended to other similarly placed accused persons to ensure parity and prevent an abuse of the process of law.

Final Decision:  The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11 – This case concerns appeals against a High Court order dismissing applications for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The central issue is whether a dispute raised by an insured party, after providing a full and final discharge voucher to the insurer, can be referred to arbitration.

The appellant, an exporter of meat products, had taken two insurance policies from the respondent. Following heavy rainfall in 2005, the appellant suffered significant losses and claimed compensation.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 406 and 420; Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 482 – Quashing of FIR – Criminal breach of trust and Cheating – The appellant was accused of criminal breach of trust and cheating based on non-payment of sale price for sarees exported through a third party, M/s. Oswal Overseas, to the appellant in Sri Lanka. The FIR alleged that the appellant induced the second respondent to do business through M/s. Oswal Overseas, with the intention to cheat.