Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 195A, 294, 506 and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 438 – Anticipatory Bail – Grant of – Appeal against – The appellant challenged the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2, who was accused of offences under Sections 195A, 294, and 506 of the IPC. The appellant argued that Respondent No. 2 is a habitual offender with a long criminal history and should not be granted anticipatory bail.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 – The Supreme Court heard appeals against a High Court order that had set aside summons issued by a Trial Court under Section 319(1) of the CrPC to private respondents in connection with a FIR for murder. The Trial Court had summoned these respondents based on evidence suggesting their involvement in the crime, even though they were not initially named as accused.

The complainant stated that the respondents were identified at the crime scene. The respondents argued that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be used sparingly and the SIT found no evidence of their presence, suggesting political motivation behind their implication.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal contests the award dated 21.04.2022 in M.C.O.P.No.13 of 2020 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vriddhachalam.

The accident occurred on 14.12.2019, resulting in the death of Francis Xavior. The appellants, the deceased’s wife, minor daughter, and mother, sought compensation of Rs. 1,75,00,000, claiming the deceased earned Rs.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This case involves two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals (CMAs) arising from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) decision regarding compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident. The Insurance Company filed one CMA (C.M.A.(MD)No.772 of 2021) challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, while the claimant filed the other (C.M.A.(MD)No.856 of 2021) seeking enhancement of the compensation.

The claimant suffered grievous injuries when his two-wheeler was hit by a three-wheeler. The MACT awarded Rs.

Constitution of India – Articles 14, 21, 32, 142, 208, 212(1); Representation of People Act, 1951 – Section 151A; Bihar Vidhan Parishad – Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business – The Supreme Court examined a writ petition challenging the expulsion of a Member of Legislative Council (MLC) from the Bihar Legislative Council (BLC) for unparliamentary conduct and persistent non-cooperation with the Ethics Committee. The Petitioner was expelled after using derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister and repeatedly evading the inquiry proceedings.

The Court dismissed the objection to maintainability under Article 212(1), distinguishing between legislative proceedings and administrative decisions that impact Fundamental Rights, which remain subject to judicial review. It affirmed its power to review the proportionality of punishment imposed by the legislative body, highlighting the significant impact of expulsion on democratic representation and constituents’ rights.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This case concerns an appeal filed by the claimant-appellant, Deepak, seeking enhanced compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred in 2012 when the motorcycle he was riding collided with a Scorpio driven rashly.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially awarded compensation of Rs. 7,09,303 with 7.5% interest.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 343, 370, 120B; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482, 320; Article 142 of the Constitution of India – The Supreme Court addressed appeals arising from a case involving allegations of wrongful confinement and human trafficking of a domestic worker. The accused, Ajay Malik, sought to quash the criminal proceedings against him, while the State challenged the discharge of co-accused Ashok Kumar. The court examined the evidence, including the FIR, complainant’s statements, and affidavits, to determine whether a prima facie case existed against either accused.

The court found that the allegations against Ajay Malik, including wrongful confinement, human trafficking, and criminal conspiracy, were not substantiated by the evidence.

Writ Petition – Medical Negligence – Compensation – Maintainability: A batch of writ petitions sought compensation for death due to alleged medical negligence. The Court held that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate forum to determine primary liability for medical negligence or the quantum of compensation, as it requires extensive evidence and examination. The State’s vicarious liability cannot be fixed without establishing the doctor’s primary negligence, which typically requires a civil suit. The Court clarified that G.O.Ms.No.395, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 04.09.2018, primarily creates a corpus fund for defending medical officers and paying compensation decreed by courts, not for direct compensation to victims based on allegations.

Constitution of India Article 226 – The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the first respondent’s communication to the fourth respondent, dated 06.05.2019, and the subsequent order of the fourth respondent, dated 10.05.2019, directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,03,00,000/-. The dispute arose from a contract awarded to the third respondent for construction work, for which the petitioner provided a bank guarantee. The first respondent invoked the bank guarantee due to the third respondent’s failure to extend its validity, leading the fourth respondent to demand the balance amount from the petitioner.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 498A; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Quashing of FIR – Held, allegations in FIR vague and omnibus, lacking specific details of harassment.

The appellants, husband and his relatives, sought quashing of FIR filed by the wife under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Act, alleging harassment for dowry. The High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings. The appellants argued that the allegations were false and a counterblast to the husband’s divorce petition.