Penal Code 1860

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

In the present case, the complaint remained pending for several years and no application was filed by Respondent 2. Now, no purpose would be served by ordering the prosecution of the accused persons, after a long delay of 14 years, when Respondent 2 and his co-accused have already been convicted in a criminal trial, relating to the same occurrence.

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court observed that the victim in her cross-examination had candidly spoken, that there was no talk between her and the accused regarding marriage proposal. Therefore, the sexual intercourse, if any, which occurred between them, is not a sequel of any allurement of marriage.

Jharkhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The prosecution case has crumbled like a house of cards. Neither the circumstances have been proved which can lead to a conclusion that the accused was complicit in offence, nor any consistent prosecution version has come which can be relied upon.

Jharkhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

It is alleged that the local MLA-the petitioner and his supporters visited Hospital to show their sympathy to the victim and her family member and after taking name, address and photograph of victim, it was sent to media and other organization from the petitioner’s mobile number.

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Prima-facie case for wrongfully restraining the team of doctors and restraining them from doing their official duties was made out and both these offences were punishable under Sections 341 and 353 of the IPC. However, despite disclosing commission of cognizable offences, the police did not register an FIR.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court referred to Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, (1980) 2 SCC 360 quoting Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer that “to be poor, in this land of Daridranayan, is no crime, and to recover debts by the procedure of putting one in prison is too flagrantly violative of Article 21 unless there is proof of the minimal fairness of his wilful failure to pay in spite of his sufficient means”.