Search Judgments

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 302 – This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, where the accused, Mohammed Syed, was sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly instigating his second wife, Sultana, to commit suicide by setting her on fire due to suspicion of infidelity. The prosecution’s case heavily relied on multiple dying declarations made by the deceased.

The defense argued inconsistencies among the dying declarations, suggesting the possibility of tutoring by relatives, especially since the earliest records indicated suicide. The prosecution countered that witnesses testified the accused set the deceased on fire, corroborated by a dying declaration recorded by a Judicial Magistrate.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482  – This case involves a quash petition filed by A1, A2, A3, and A5 seeking to dismiss proceedings in C.C.No.540 of 2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. The complaint, filed by the second respondent, alleged that the accused, partners of “Amman Finance” and “Amman Arul Finance,” took loans without proper documentation. A1 to A5 allegedly borrowed Rs.75,50,000/- from Amman Finance and Rs.17,95,000/- from Amman Arul Finance. Further, they also borrowed Rs.1,51,35,000/- from outsiders.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 294(b) and 302 & Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Section 161 – This Criminal Appeal was filed by Accused 1 and Accused 2 against the judgment of conviction passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in S.C. No. 64 of 2015, dated 22.11.2018. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 120(b) r/w 409, 420, 477(A)

The petitioner company, M/s. Star Agri Warehousing and Collateral Management Ltd., sought to quash proceedings against it in C.C.No. 4 of 2024, where it was accused of offenses under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations stem from a corporate fraud involving the creation of false documents by the company’s officials (A6-A8) in collusion with bank officials, leading to the misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 122; Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2 (24) – This case concerns a dispute over the partition of property, specifically regarding the validity and nature of a settlement deed executed in 1963. The plaintiffs, heirs of Govindammal, claimed a 2/3rd share of the property based on the settlement deed, while the defendant, widow of Markandeya Reddy, asserted an oral partition had occurred, dividing the property equally.

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court both ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, upholding the validity of the settlement deed and awarding them a 2/3rd share. However, the High Court modified the judgments, deeming the settlement deed a gift deed lacking adequate consideration and granting each party a one-half share.

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.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Section 37 and 52A – This appeal addresses the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the respondent based on the misinterpreted application of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, concerning the disposal of seized narcotic drugs. The High Court had emphasized on the delayed compliance of Section 52A, without considering the mandated findings under Section 37 of the same Act.

The prosecution’s case involves the seizure of Tramadol and Zolpidem tablets from parcels booked by the accused. The respondent, Kashif, was arrested based on his involvement in sending these parcels.

Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921 – Section 1(3)(f), 3 and 9 – Transferred City Tenant Original Petition (TCTOP) arising from a suit filed in 1979, where the tenant sought to compel the landlord to sell the land under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, 1921. The tenant had constructed superstructures on the leased land. The landlord resisted, arguing the amended Act exempted religious trusts/charities from its provisions and claimed that the property was a religious charity.

The court examined Ex.R.1 and found it was partly a family arrangement and partly a deed of trust.

Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 – Section 7 – Petition filed under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, regarding the Addepalli Kandaswamy Chetty and Chenchu Venkatasubhu Guruvajamma Charitable Trust. The petitioners, claiming to be worshippers, sought a declaration to nullify encumbrances created on the trust property, alleging misinterpretation of a prior court order (O.P. No. 31 of 2008) that allowed the trust property to vest with a society.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 22 Rule 10A, Section 2(11) – This Civil Revision Petition contested the order of the District Judge, Karaikal, regarding I.A.No.66 of 2018 in a partition suit (O.S.No.21 of 1993). The application sought to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondents in the final decree proceedings (I.A.No.178 of 2017). The District Judge dismissed the application, citing delays and non-compliance with Order 22 Rule 10A of CPC.

The High Court noted that the District Judge failed to consider the death certificates provided by the petitioner.