Criminal Law

Principles summarized relating to parameters for summoning of additional accused under this section. The parameters on which additional accused could be summoned in an application filed under Section 319 CrPC are well settled in the case of Hardeep Singh and Ors.’s case (supra) which are as under: “105. Power u/s 319 CrPC is a discretionary […]

Person on coming to know about commission of offence under POCSO Act, held, is obliged to promptly report the same to the specified authorities. Failure to do so must be regarded as a serious offence even though punishment prescribed under S. 21 is not severe. Supreme Court under parens patriae jurisdiction has duty to give

Sanction or prior approval for prosecution under MCOCA: This sanction order dated 05.11.2020 is the bone of contention in the present matter. Held, this Court has repeatedly said that when an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him the benefit of Section 438 CrPC. What has been observed

It has been held by this Court in a catena of cases including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported at (1984) 4 SCC 116, that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court has held that there is not only a grammatical but also a legal distinction between ‘may’ and

Principles clarified regarding effect of omission to frame proper charge and to put relevant circumstances to accused during their examination under S. 313 (in a murder case) and applicability of Ill. (e) of S. 213 CrPC. Held, As can be seen from the oral evidence, the post-mortem reports and examination of the doctor, Harpal Singh

The civil suit being the Original Suit No. 1343 of 2016 between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the complainant as a plaintiff is that no sale deed dated 29.12.2010 was executed, whereas the contention of the appellant herein as a defendant in the suit is that the sale deed had been executed

Crime was committed in State of Gujarat, but case pending before trial court there was transferred by Supreme Court to competent court in State of Maharashtra for trial and disposal. Held, after trial had been concluded and judgment of conviction came to be passed, all further proceedings have to be considered including remission or premature

Exercise of inherent powers of High Court under, to quash criminal proceedings in view of compromise arrived at between parties in case of matrimonial disputes, when warranted, explained. Since the parties have buried the hatchet and have decided to give quietus to the proceedings which were lodged inter se, going by the law declared by

The scope and ambit of Section 319 CrPC has been well­ settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others1 and paras 105 and 106 which are relevant for the purpose are reproduced hereunder: “105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extra­ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly

Exercise of power under Art. 142 of the Constitution in this regard, whether warranted, determined. During the pendency of these proceedings, the sister of the injured-PW-2 has married the accused No. 3 (Guhan). The accused persons as well as the injured are all residents of the same locality. In order to bring peace and in