Indlaw Updates - Case Law & Judgments

Valjibhai Kanjibhai Babariya vs State of Gujarat and others [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 12 Jun 2013]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, ss. 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 - Cheating - FIR - Quashing of - Petitioner has sought quashing of FIR registered u/ss. 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 114 IPC - Hence instant petition - Whether FIR could be quahsed - Held, entire tenor of complaint and not naming petitioner clearly indicated that complainant has no personal axe to land against anyone and in discharge of his duties, when things surfaced, which clearly indicated that the sufficient ingredients available constituting offence was available - Beneficiary of the change of tenure was not questioned in any manner nor had been pleaded by petitioner or his counsel - Averments made in the complaint clearly indicated that there exists sufficient ingredients for constituting the offence and therefore, same could not be quashed - Offence was unequivocally go to indicate that sufficient ingredients were available as could be seen from the averments made in the complaint - Non-availability of the paper rendering the prosecution difficult and in turn rendering the complaint as far cry, could never be the subject matter before HC for quashment - Petition dismissed.

Ajay Paswan @ Ajay Kumar Paswan vs State of Jharkhand [JHARKHAND HIGH COURT, 12 Jun 2013]
Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss. 82, 83 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 366, 387 - Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion - Warrant of arrest - Legality - A case was registered against accused/petitioner u/ss. 366, 387 of IPC - Trial Court took cognizance of offence and passed an order for issuance of summon - Without there being any service of summon, Trial Court passed order and issued warrant of arrest non-bailable against petitioner - Hence instant application - Whether order passed by Trial Court was justified - Held, Trial Court without having any report relating to execution of warrant of arrest, passed order for issuance of process u/s. 82 of CrPC and subsequently, in same manner another order was passed for issuance of process u/s. 83 of CrPC - None of the orders appeared to be legal - All the orders passed by Trial Court was set aside - Petitioner was directed to put his appearance before Trial Court within two weeks - Application allowed.

Pushpinder Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 12 Jun 2013]

Roshan Lal C/o Tarsem S/o Labh Singh vs Public Information Officer, Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region, Chandigarh [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Jun 2013]

A. N. Pandey, Computer Operator, SBI, Zonal Office, Region-III, Varanasi vs Public Information Officer, State Bank of India, Administrative Office, Varanasi [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Jun 2013]

K. A. Seralathan vs Registrar of Companies, Chennai [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Jun 2013]

M. Jesuretnam vs Registrar of Companies, Chennai [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 12 Jun 2013]

Sevitam Pandey vs State of Uttarakhand and another [UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT, 12 Jun 2013]

Enercon (India) Limited, Daman vs Aloys Wobben, Germany [INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD, 12 Jun 2013]

Ranbaxy Laboraties Limited, New Delhi vs (1) Controller of Patents anf Designs, Mumbai; (2) Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Mumbai; (3) Syngenta Limited, Japan [INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD, 12 Jun 2013]

Delhi International Airport Private Limited vs HT Media Limited and others [DELHI HIGH COURT, 11 Jun 2013]
Civil Procedure - Rules of practice in parliament, r.275 - Constitution of India, 1950, art.151 - Application for injunction - Sustainability - Plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants from relying upon and using the alleged report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) on the 'Implementation of Public Private Partnership at Airport as the basis of package of articles, story, column, news report or item or any other form of public dissemination, through the print, electronic and social media or in any other form - Report of CAG relating to implementation of public private partnership at Airport should be subjected to process provided under the rules of practice in parliament - Said report should be with first examined by the PAC (Public Accounts committee) which should scrutinize the said report and thereafter would submit its report - It was argued that thereafter the said CAG report should be laid before the parliament - In the process of the pendency of the CAG report before the PAC which would examine the veracity of the said report and should examine into several facts, the publication of any article by the defendants in the newspaper affecting the merits of the controversy would be violation of r.275 of Rules of the procedure of Lok Sabha - Plaintiff had argued the proceedings which were pending before the PAC were kept confidential and publication of any facts affecting the merits of the CAG report when PAC was seized of the matter would be prejudging the controversy and if not then certainly the same would affect public opinion adversely when the competent authority was yet to decide the matter - Plaintiff had argued that the nature of the questionnaire sent by defendant No.2 with his email would clearly show that the defendant intended to publish the facts affecting the merits of the correctness or otherwise of the CAG report after seeking clarifications from the plaintiff - Plaintiff argued if his client would state the answer in affirmative or in negative or even avoid answering the said questionnaire, the defendant would publish the said version as it was which would affect the public opinion adversely towards the role of the plaintiff or any other participant who all were subject matter of the CAG report - Plaintiff also argued that it might be true that the CAG report as such might be available in public domain and there might be publications which were already available in the public domain as suggested by the defendants, however the defendants might be restrained to further analyze the facts affecting the merits of the CAG report which might be prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff in the manner attempted to be done by the defendants while seeking clarifications from the email dt. 1-6-2013 - In short, the submission of plaintiff was that the defendant might be allowed to publish the articles on CAG report which were available in public domain but should not analyze it further by asking the participants of the transaction including the plaintiff in the instant case - Lastly, plaintiff had cited number of the case laws wherein it was laid down that the proceedings which were pending before PAC of the parliament were to be kept confidential and even the RTI was also not permissible to make the proceedings public and it would be in breach of the rules of procedure of parliament to make such facts public or publish them till the time the proceedings are pending consideration before the committee - Held, first and foremost, it was noteworthy to mention that it was correct that the CAG report was subjected to parliamentary process as provided in art.151 of the Constitution and rules of procedure of parliament as stated by plaintiff - However, what was required to be kept confidential was the proceedings before the committee as per r.275 of Rules - It was one thing to say that the person was expressing the opinion of the existing report of Constitutional functionary, however, it was altogether different thing to say that the person was leaking information or making any information about the proceedings before the parliamentary committee public including the evidence or any facts disclosed during the progress of the proceedings - Therefore, the analysis of the CAG Report as it stood in the public domain and expression of the opinion thereon could not be construed to mean there would be an intrusion in the proceedings or domain of the parliamentary process nor the same would be treated as the violation of r.275 of Rules as was evident from its express wordings - Appeal dismissed.

Swami Raghuvansh Puri vs State Govt. of (NCT of Delhi) [DELHI HIGH COURT, 11 Jun 2013]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 375(e) and 354A (1) - Rape - FIR - Anticipatory bail - Sustainability - Petitioner allegedly committed offence of rape - FIR was filed against petitioner u/ss. 3759(e) and 354A(1) IPC - Thus, petitioner wanted to apply for anticipatory bail - Hence instant petition - Held, Investigating Officer (IO) in the matter needed custodial interrogation which was required and the petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation who had virtually absconded (not being found at any of the places of his residence and non-bailable warrants having been issued against him) - It had also come on record that the audio recordings recorded by the complainant showed that the petitioner had demanded sexual favour from her - At that stage, it was not necessary to express any opinion on complaint made by the complainant - If the allegations were proved to be true, then it was a matter of seriousness - Appellant was not available at the addresses in Delhi and Haridwar - Appellant was not joining the investigation - No doubt, the matter was under investigation which was yet to be completed - Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and the nature of allegations made by the complainant coupled with the fact that the investigation was still at the initial stage for which the petitioner's custodial interrogation was necessary as per the case of the respondent and he was not coming forward for the purpose of investigation - Petition dismissed.

Akram Khan vs State Govt. of (NCT of Delhi) [DELHI HIGH COURT, 11 Jun 2013]
Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.307 - Arms Act, 1959, s.27 - Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973,s.161 - Attempt to murder - FIR - Prayer for anticipatory bail - Sustainability - Petitioner allegedly committed offence of attempt to murder - FIR was filed u/s.307 IPC and s.27 of Act - Petitioner wanted anticipatory bail - Hence instant petition - Whether petitioner was entitled to receive anticipatory bail - Held, It is also informed by the learned APP that the statements of the mother of the victim Babua and the mother of the complainant Azar have been recorded by the police u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. who have stated that the family members of Akram, the petitioner herein, were making pressure upon them to withdraw the case and to make the statement in the Court that the bullet shot on Babua was not busted by the petitioner, but the same was made by two unknown persons who came on the motorcycle and were wearing helmet. The petitioner's family has also offered them Rs. 1 lac for the treatment of victim Babua. Both of them prayed for taking legal action against the petitioner - Keeping in view the nature of allegations made by the complainant against the petitioner and seriousness of the matter coupled with the fact that the investigation is still at the initial stage for which the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary as per the case of respondent - Petition dismissed.

Luxmi Narayan Dubey vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 11 Jun 2013]

Jagat Pati Mathur, Since Deceased, Represented by legal Heirs Ashok Kumar Mathur and others vs State of West Bengal and others [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 11 Jun 2013]

Dipesh Kumar Nirala vs Public Information Officer, United Bank of India, Jharkhand Regional Office [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 11 Jun 2013]

Vikas Bakshi vs Delhi Police (South East District) [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 11 Jun 2013]

Saroj Agrawalla vs Delhi Police (South East District) [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 11 Jun 2013]

Moonley Industries vs Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Limited and others [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 11 Jun 2013]

State of Himachal Pradesh vs Kuldeep Singh [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 11 Jun 2013]
Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 498-A - Dowry - Acquittal - Sustainability - Respondent-accused was charged for offences punishable u/s. 498-A IPC - Trial Court acquitted accused -Hence instant appeal - Whether acquittal orders by Trial Court was sustainable - Held, on analysis of prosecution witnesses and materials on record Trial Court had rightly arrived at finding that prosecution had not been able to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and had accordingly had rightly acquitted accused in offence charged - Hence, there was no scope for interference in impugned judgment of Trial Court - Appeal dismissed.

Search for Relevant Judgments