Apex court uncovered the ongoing tendency of misusing provisions like section 498A IPC for unleashing personal vendetta against husband and his family
This appeal challenges the by the Hon’ble High court order refused to quash an FIR filed against Appellant No. 1 for cruelty, harassment and dowry demands under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. Appellants 2 to 6 are accused of instigating these claims. The FIR is criticized by the Hon’ble Supreme court for being vague with allegations deemed unbelievable, particularly since Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home after a dispute and Appellant No. 1 sought a divorce. The Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed relevant legal precedents and highlighted the misuse of Section 498A for personal vendettas, ultimately allowing the appeal and quashing the proceedings against the appellant.
Can a state claim adverse possession over the property of private citizens? – SC Answers
The Supreme Court of India upheld the High Court’s decision, which restored the Trial Court’s decree in favor of the plaintiffs, Amin Lal and Ashok Kumar, in a land dispute case against the State of Haryana and the Public Works Department (PWD). The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on revenue records, while the defendants argued adverse possession since 1879-80. The Trial Court ruled for the plaintiffs, but the First Appellate Court reversed this decision. The High Court reinstated the Trial Court’s ruling, emphasizing that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its citizens. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the State of Haryana and PWD, reinforcing the principle that the State cannot appropriate private property through adverse possession and highlighting the importance of protecting citizens’ property rights.
Murder case acquittal: No witness suggests the presence of accused in the SOC on the fateful day
Nusrat Parween and Ahmad Khan appealed against their life imprisonment sentences for the murder of Hamida Parween, following a property dispute. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, claiming a motive and a “last seen together” theory. However, the defense argued that no direct evidence linked the accused to the crime. The court found the prosecution’s case unconvincing, leading to the acquittal of all accused, including Abdul Rahman Khan, due to insufficient evidence.
Compensation over incarceration in special circumstance of 11 years after the incident
The Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of Muthupandi for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the IPC, which resulted in the death of a person and six cows. However, considering the long duration since the incident (11 years) and the appellant’s continuous bail status, the Court set aside the sentence of imprisonment and fines. Instead, it ordered that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by the appellant be paid to the mother of the deceased as compensation. The Court directed that the compensation amount be transferred to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, for disbursement to the mother of the deceased.
Writ: Miscellaneous Applications Not Entertained after disposal of a main writ petition
Miscellaneous Applications Not Entertained after disposal of a main writ petition.
An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused
An inordinate delay in the execution of the sentence of death has a dehumanising effect on the accused.
Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Decision in Mumbai Eviction Case and directed to proceed with the principles of natural justice
The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, setting aside the High Court’s order that had expedited eviction proceedings against unauthorized occupants of public premises. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by framing points for determination in a summary proceeding. The Inquiry Officer was directed to proceed with the eviction proceedings in accordance with principles of natural justice, allowing both parties to present evidence and raise their defenses, except for issues already determined by previous judicial orders.
Plea of alibi gone wrong for murder case also defence on lack of sanction won’t work
The case revolves around police officials from Murar Police Station, Gwalior, who allegedly forged an arrest to protect Ashok Dixit, an accused in a murder case. The investigation led to the suspension of the involved officials and the filing of a charge sheet against them. The High Court quashed the proceedings due to the lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, which protects public servants from prosecution without government approval. The complainant has appealed against this quash order, questioning whether the CJM, Firozabad, could take cognizance of the charge sheets without the required sanction. The appellant, Om Prakash Yadav, lodged an FIR for murder against several individuals, including Ashok Dixit, after witnessing the killing of his brother and the injury of his nephew. On the same day, another FIR was registered against Ashok Dixit for carrying illegal liquor, allegedly to create an alibi. The charge sheet in the murder case was submitted before the CJM, Firozabad, while the investigation into the liquor case continued, implicating several police officials in the forgery. The appeals arise from a common judgment by the High Court of Allahabad, which quashed the proceedings of two cases pending before the CJM, Firozabad. The primary issue is whether the CJM could take cognizance of the charge sheets without the required sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The case highlights the complexities of legal procedures and the protection afforded to public servants under the law.
