Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376, 384, 323, 504, 506 – Quashing of proceedings arising out of FIR based on allegations of rape, blackmail, and other offenses – The complainant, a highly educated woman, alleged that the appellant established a prolonged sexual relationship with her under the false promise of marriage over approximately 16 years. The relationship was initiated in 2006, during which the appellant allegedly committed rape, blackmail using obscene videos, and physical harm. The complainant filed the FIR in 2022 after discovering the appellant’s marriage to another woman.

The appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant’s allegations were fabricated due to their relationship turning sour.

Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 – This judgment concerns writ petitions filed by two women Judicial Officers, Ms. Sarita Choudhary and Ms. Aditi Kumar Sharma, challenging their termination from service during their probation period. The Madhya Pradesh High Court terminated their services, along with four other women officers, based on their performance records and complaints.

Customs Act, 1962 & Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – This judgment addresses the power to arrest under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, clarifying the conditions and safeguards surrounding such arrests. It examines the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Om Prakash v. Union of India (2011) and subsequent amendments to the Customs Act and the GST Act.

The court affirms that Customs and GST officers are not police officers and clarifies the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), to offences under these Acts.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 80 – Amendment of plaint – Notice under Section 80 CPC. This appeal challenges the Calcutta High Court’s order allowing the respondent to amend their plaint and dispensing with the Section 80 CPC notice requirement. The case originates from a tender floated by the Public Works Department (PWD) and a subsequent debarment order against the respondent due to incomplete work.

The respondent filed a civil suit challenging the debarment proceedings, arguing that the penalty was outside the contract’s scope and claiming losses. The High Court had previously set aside several debarment orders due to procedural lapses.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 24 & 26 – Jurisdiction of Family Court: A Family Court’s jurisdiction to decide applications for maintenance pendente lite (Section 24) and for the welfare of children (Section 26) does not cease upon the withdrawal of the main divorce petition. These provisions are independent and are not merely ancillary to the primary matrimonial proceedings. The court retains the power to adjudicate on these matters to ensure financial security for the dependent spouse and the welfare of the child.

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage: The Supreme Court can exercise its power under Article 142 to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376, 420, 504, 506 – The appeal challenges a Bombay High Court order dismissing a petition to quash an FIR registered under Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The FIR was filed by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) alleging that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her under the false promise of marriage from 2008 to 2017. The appellant argued that the relationship was consensual, and the allegations were made after he refused further financial assistance.

Contract Act, 1872 – Section 27; Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(g) – The writ appeals challenge the orders dismissing writ petitions filed by postgraduate doctors seeking reduction in their mandatory service period under bond conditions, arguing that their service during the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered towards fulfilling the bond obligation. The doctors, having executed bonds to serve in Government Hospitals after completing their PG courses, claimed that their COVID-19 duties should be adjusted against the bond period.

The respondents argued that the bond conditions are binding, and reducing the bond period, which was already reduced from two years to one year, would defeat the purpose of ensuring service in Government Hospitals. They also contended that COVID duty certificates are primarily for incentive marks in Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB) recruitments and not for bond duty relief.