Tag: Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court Rules: Companies Can Also Be ‘Victims’ in Criminal Cases
7Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Companies Can Also Be ‘Victims’ in Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court ruled that a company qualifies as a "victim" under Section 2(wa) CrPC if it suffers loss or injury due to an offence, entitling it to file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court clarified that such appeals are independent of Section 378 CrPC and need not be restricted to cases where the victim is the complainant. The judgment reinforces the expansive interpretation of "victim" to include corporations, ensuring their right to challenge wrongful acquittals in criminal cases involving infringement or fraud. Facts Of The Case: Asian Paints Limited, a leading paint manufacturer, discovered counterfeit products being sold under its brand name at a shop owned by Ram Babu in Jaipur. The company had authorized M/s Solution, an IPR consultanc...
Read More
Supreme Court Explains : When Can Courts Quash Serious Crimes?
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains : When Can Courts Quash Serious Crimes?

The Supreme Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed criminal proceedings—including a non-compoundable offense under Section 376 IPC—based on an amicable settlement between the parties. The Court emphasized that while such offenses are grave, exceptional circumstances (victim’s unequivocal settlement, societal harmony, and futility of trial) justified judicial intervention to prevent abuse of process. The ruling reaffirms that ends of justice override rigid legal constraints in unique cases. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from two FIRs registered in November 2023 at Mehunbare Police Station, Jalgaon. The first FIR (No. 302/2023) was filed against Madhukar and others under Sections 324, 143, 147, 452, and others of the IPC, alleging they assaulted a woman a...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Civil Dispute: No Cheating Without Criminal Intent
5Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Civil Dispute: No Cheating Without Criminal Intent

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR alleging offences under Sections 60(b), 316(2), and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, holding that the dispute was purely civil in nature. The Court reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be used to enforce monetary claims and emphasized that cheating requires dishonest intent from inception. Criticizing the High Court's mediation order directing upfront payment, the SC ruled that such disputes must be resolved through civil remedies, not criminal prosecution. The judgment reaffirmed the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh to prevent abuse of criminal law in commercial disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a criminal appeal filed by Shatlesh Kumar Singh, ...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Partners Liable for Bounced Cheques Even If Firm Isn’t Named

The Supreme Court ruled that in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a partnership firm need not be separately arraigned as an accused if its partners are prosecuted. The notice to partners constitutes notice to the firm, as partners are jointly and severally liable. The Court clarified that unlike companies, partnership firms lack a separate legal identity, making partners directly liable. The judgment distinguishes between vicarious liability (for companies) and joint liability (for firms), upholding the complaint’s validity despite the firm’s omission. The High Court’s order quashing the complaint was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Dhansingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of ₹21 lakh to the respondents, Chandrasekar and another, who were partners of the fi...
Read More
Forced Marriage to Murder: The Shocking Case of Kum. Shubha & the Tragic Crime
4Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Forced Marriage to Murder: The Shocking Case of Kum. Shubha & the Tragic Crime

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC for conspiring to murder the deceased, relying on circumstantial evidence, including Call Detail Records (CDRs) and motive established through witness testimonies. The Court clarified the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and emphasized that constitutional powers under Article 161 (pardoning power of the Governor) remain exercisable despite statutory remission rules. The judgment reaffirmed the principles of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda for circumstantial evidence while dismissing appeals but allowed the convicts to seek pardon. Facts Of The Case: In December 2003, Kum. Shubha (A-4), a 20-year-old law student, was engaged to B.V. Girish (deceased),...
Read More
No Civil Suit Barrier: Supreme Court Rules Criminal Trial Must Proceed in Land Scam Case
22Jul By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Civil Suit Barrier: Supreme Court Rules Criminal Trial Must Proceed in Land Scam Case

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 120B, 415, and 420 IPC against respondents for allegedly fabricating a partition deed and family tree to exclude daughters from property compensation. It ruled that pendency of civil suits does not bar criminal prosecution if a prima facie case exists. The Court emphasized that criminal conspiracy and cheating must be tried independently, reinstating the trial court’s proceedings. The judgment reaffirms that civil and criminal remedies can coexist, ensuring accountability for fraudulent deprivation of property rights. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around a dispute over compensation amounting to ₹33 crores awarded by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation for ancestral land purchased by K...
Read More
No Narco Test Without Consent: Supreme Court Cites Constitutional Rights
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Narco Test Without Consent: Supreme Court Cites Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court ruled that involuntary narco-analysis tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, affirming that such tests and information derived from them are inadmissible as sole evidence for conviction. While voluntary tests with safeguards are permissible, their results alone cannot lead to conviction. An accused has a right to voluntarily undergo the test during trial, but it's not an indefeasible right; the court must assess all circumstances, including free consent and safeguards. The Court emphasized that a bail application should not involve ordering such involuntary investigative techniques. Facts Of The Case: A First Information Report (FIR No. 545 of 2022) was registered on August 24, 2022, at P.S. Mahua, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,...
Read More
Supreme Court Strikes Down Kerala’s Preventive Detention Order: A Win for Personal Liberty
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Strikes Down Kerala’s Preventive Detention Order: A Win for Personal Liberty

The Supreme Court of India, in Dhanyam v. State of Kerala & Ors., set aside a preventive detention order, emphasizing that such extraordinary power must be used sparingly and only in situations affecting "public order," not merely "law and order". The Court reiterated that if a detenu is on bail and allegedly violating conditions, the State should seek bail cancellation rather than resorting to preventive detention. Facts Of The Case: The appeal originated from a High Court of Kerala judgment dated September 4, 2024, which affirmed a preventive detention order issued on June 20, 2024, by the District Magistrate, Palakkad. The detenu, Rajesh, the appellant's husband, runs a registered lending firm named 'Rithika Finance'. The detention order, issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala ...
Read More
Supreme Court :Threats Alone Can Constitute Extortion “No Need for Money Exchange”| Section 387 IPC
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Threats Alone Can Constitute Extortion “No Need for Money Exchange”| Section 387 IPC

The Supreme Court of India ruled that for a prosecution under Section 387 IPC, the delivery of property is not necessary, as this section punishes the act of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt "in order to commit extortion," which is a stage prior to the actual commission of extortion. The High Court's quashing order was set aside because it wrongly emphasized the non-delivery of money, which is not an essential ingredient for an offense under Section 387 IPC. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal filed by M/s. Balaji Traders (appellant-complainant) against a High Court judgment dated June 28, 2024, which quashed a summoning order and proceedings in Complaint Case No. 58 of 2022 under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant, Prof. Manoj Kumar ...
Read More
Bank’s Gold Revaluation Under Scrutiny: Supreme Court Allows Trial Against Bank Officials
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Bank’s Gold Revaluation Under Scrutiny: Supreme Court Allows Trial Against Bank Officials

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal by Abhishek Singh, holding that the High Court improperly quashed the FIR filed by him. The High Court erred by considering extraneous documents and evaluating the merits of the case at the quashing stage, rather than determining if a prima facie offense was made out. The proceedings from the FIR are revived, and the guilt or innocence of the respondents is to be established at trial. Facts Of The Case: Abhishek Singh, the appellant, a businessman, secured a loan of ₹7,70,000 from the Bank of India on July 22, 2020, by pledging 254 grams of 22-carat gold ornaments. According to Singh, he repaid the loan, including interest, by March 31, 2023, after receiving a notice from the bank on October 7, 2022, to pay ₹8,01,383.59. However, unbeknownst ...
Read More