Discharge Application - The Legal Chamber

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...

Supreme Court on Trap Cases: Criminal Trial Can Proceed Despite Departmental Exoneration

The Supreme Court held that exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar continuation of criminal prosecution, as the standards of proof and purpose differ. However, it remanded the case to the trial court to determine the validity of the prosecution sanction, emphasizing that sanction must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, T. Manjunath, a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles in Bengaluru, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹15,000 through an intermediary. Following a trap by the Lokayukta, a criminal case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Transport Commissioner granted sanction for prosecution, and a chargesheet was filed. The appellant sought dischar...

Parallel Proceedings Valid: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Central Excise Act Dispute

The Supreme Court upheld the continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 9 and 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the quashing of adjudication orders on procedural grounds. Relying on Radheshyam Kejriwal, it ruled that parallel departmental and criminal proceedings are permissible, and discharge cannot be sought merely due to pending adjudication. The Court emphasized that prima facie evidence in the complaint justified the trial, rejecting technical objections under CrPC Section 245(2). It clarified that remand for de novo adjudication does not equate to exoneration on merits, ensuring criminal liability remains independent of administrative outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case involved M/s Rimjhim Ispat Limited, M/s Juhi Alloys Limited, and Yogesh Aggarwal (Appellant...