Tag: criminal intimidation

Supreme Court: Disputed No-Dues Certificate Can’t Be Ground to Quash Criminal Proceedings
2Mar By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Disputed No-Dues Certificate Can’t Be Ground to Quash Criminal Proceedings

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed where allegations prima facie disclose essential ingredients of an offence. The power under Section 482 CrPC is sparing; disputed documents like No-Dues Certificate cannot be relied upon at pre-trial stage. Civil remedy coexistence doesn't bar prosecution if allegations support criminal liability. Facts Of The Case: The dispute in this case arose from contractual and financial dealings between the appellant (accused no. 2) and respondent no. 2 (complainant) concerning construction work undertaken between 2008 and 2010. A No Dues Certificate was issued by respondent no. 2 on 10.06.2010 and acknowledged on 12.06.2010, recording that no payments were outstanding. Subsequently, disputes emerged between the parties, leading to...
Read More
When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case
26Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When One Accused Gets Relief, Others Should Too: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Land Grab Case

In this judgment, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the appellants based on the principle of parity. Since co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted relief under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court—a decision which had attained finality—the Court held the same benefit must extend to the appellants. Facts Of The Case: Vasanthi, sister of respondent No. 2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs from appellant No. 2 (accused No. 5). As security for the said loan, Vasanthi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of appellant No. 1 (accused No. 4) concerning a property measuring 1980 sq. ft. situated at Villanur Revenue Village. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of h...
Read More
Supreme Court: Enforcing Civil Rights Through Injunction Order is Not Wrongful Restraint
26Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Enforcing Civil Rights Through Injunction Order is Not Wrongful Restraint

In this Supreme Court judgment, the Supreme Court held that at the discharge stage, courts must sift evidence to determine if a "strong suspicion" exists. It clarified that an offence under Section 354C IPC requires capturing a "private act," which was absent. The Court further ruled that wrongful restraint is not made out if the accused bona fide believes in a lawful right to obstruct. Facts Of The Case: On March 19, 2020, a complaint/FIR was lodged by Ms. Mamta Agarwal against the appellant, Tuhin Kumar Biswas. The complainant alleged that on March 18, 2020, when she, along with her friend and workmen, attempted to enter a property in Salt Lake, Kolkata, the appellant intimidated them and restrained them from entering. It was further alleged that the appellant clicked her photogr...
Read More
Supreme Court :Knowledge of Victim’s Caste Enough for SC/ST Act Conviction
29Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :Knowledge of Victim’s Caste Enough for SC/ST Act Conviction

The Supreme Court affirmed that school admission registers are admissible evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act to prove a victim's minority in POCSO cases. It clarified that a witness cannot be declared hostile for minor inconsistencies, reiterating that such a step is an extraordinary measure requiring clear hostility or resiling from a material statement. The Court also held that under the amended SC/ST Act, mere knowledge of the victim's caste is sufficient to attract Section 3(2)(v), especially when a presumption of such awareness arises under Section 8(c) from prior acquaintance. Facts Of The Case: On the night of May 10, 2018, the minor victim left her home to deliver food to her grandfather. Near a Sendhwar tree, the appellant, Shivkumar, allegedly abducted her by force, ...
Read More
Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle
27Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Merely Buying Property Doesn’t Make You an Accused: Supreme Court Reiterates Legal Principle

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused appellant, holding that no prima facie case was established under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the IPC. The Court ruled that mere subsequent purchase of property from a co-accused, without allegation of inducement or involvement in the initial fraudulent transaction, does not attract criminal liability for cheating or criminal breach of trust. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an FIR filed by Ms. Amutha in October 2022 against Gunasekaran (Accused No. 1) for offences under Section 420 of the IPC. She alleged that in 2015, Gunasekaran fraudulently represented himself as the owner of a vacant plot, inducing her into an unregistered sale agreement for ₹1.64 crore. She paid substantial sums totaling ₹92 lakhs ...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough
25Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against In-Laws, Says Vague Allegations in 498A Case Are Not Enough

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Section 498-A, 377, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the in-laws. It held that general and vague allegations, without specific details of cruelty or unlawful demands, do not constitute a prima facie case. The Court reiterated that proceedings without such foundational ingredients amount to an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, who were the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the complainant, sought the quashing of an FIR registered against them. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 377 (unnatural sex), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The marriage between the complainant and the appellants' son/brother took place ...
Read More
You Can’t Be Convicted Under a Law That Didn’t Exist: Supreme Court Corrects Legal Error in Decades-Old Case
5Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

You Can’t Be Convicted Under a Law That Didn’t Exist: Supreme Court Corrects Legal Error in Decades-Old Case

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 195-A IPC, holding it unconstitutional for being applied retroactively, violating Article 20(1). However, it upheld the conviction under Section 506-B IPC for criminal intimidation. The Court directed the State to reconsider the deceased appellant's termination and terminal benefits, considering only the surviving conviction. Facts Of The Case: In 1999, a minor girl, who was a witness in a molestation case, set herself ablaze and subsequently died. Before her death, she alleged in a dying declaration that Sheikh Akhtar, a court official (Naib Nazir), and three others had threatened to kill her and her father if she did not compromise her court testimony. Based on this, Akhtar was convicted in 2007 by a Se...
Read More
Supreme Court Facilitates Settlement in Rape and Cheating Case, Orders Return of Money and Gold
5Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Facilitates Settlement in Rape and Cheating Case, Orders Return of Money and Gold

The Supreme Court disposed of appeals concerning allegations under Sections 376, 406, and 506 of the IPC by facilitating a settlement. The Court directed the appellant to deposit a specified sum with the Trial Court and gold ornaments with the High Court Registrar for release to the prosecutrix, thereby resolving the disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an FIR registered against the appellant-accused based on a complaint filed by the second respondent, the prosecutrix. She alleged that the accused, who was assisting her with ongoing divorce proceedings, forcefully subjected her to sexual intercourse in December 2017 under the threat of disseminating her photographs. Subsequently, on multiple occasions in 2018, he established a physical relationship with her on the false ...
Read More
Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Property Dispute Case
16Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Property Dispute Case

The Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Bombay High Court, holding that such relief is an "extraordinary remedy" and must not be granted routinely, especially in grave offences. The Court emphasized that concealing material facts (like a vacated injunction order) and witness intimidation vitiate bail. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary due to the accused's non-cooperation and criminal antecedents, violating bail conditions. The ruling reaffirmed strict judicial scrutiny under Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) to prevent miscarriage of justice[ Facts Of The Case: The case involves a property dispute between Nikita Jagganath Shetty (the appellant) and her estranged husband, Vishwajeet Jadhav (respondent No. 4), along with other co-accused. Nikit...
Read More