Adultery: According to section 497 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, women cannot be proceeded against for offcene of adultery even as an abettor, and only men can be proceeded for offence of adultery. Therefore, setting aside the order of Hon'ble High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it erred in not quashing the complaint against the accused. W. Kalyani v. State through Inspector of Police and other, (Supreme Court).

Anticipatory bail: In cases of anticipatory bail Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that such applications shall be dealt in very serious manner, and cannot be treated in a casual manner, showing un-deserving and un-warranted sympathy towards the accused. As the aforesaid parameter was not applied by Hon'ble Court of Judicature, Patna, therefore, the impugned judgment was set-aside and anticipatory bail granted to the accused was set-aside. Jai Prakash v. State of Bihar, (Supreme Court).

Caste: Children arising out of a wedlock between a tribal women and a non-tribal man can claim to be tribal if he proves before the high power committee that in spite of the marriage, he was brought up as a member of socially backward community, siblings married in the said community and since start of life suffered from deprivations, indignities, humilities and handicaps as determination of caste is purely a question of fact. Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat, (Supreme Court).

Cheque bouncing: Merely because three civil suits were pending between the parties would not be a ground to quash the complaint lodged under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheque, if prima facie ingredients are satisfied. Monotech Systems v. Jai Badri Vishal Graphics, (HC of MP).

Classification: When the financial burden of introducing & providing civic amenities to support new developments in the city imposed only on allottees of new development, then it would be reasonable classification. Bangalore Development Authority v. Aircraft Employees' Cooperative Society, (Supreme Court).

Constitutional validity: The provision in Arms Act, 1959 encapsulates that whenever usage of any prohibited arms/ammunitions results in death, then the offender shall be punished with death penalty. As the said provision - s.27(3) is widely worded, drastic in nature and takes away judicial review, therefore, held that such a provision is unconstitutional. State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 346.

Divorce: Under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, there are specific considerations for grant of decree of divorce, and one of them is cruelty. Once the evidence lead by the party demonstrates that s/he has been meted with cruelty, having regard to the evidence as well as legal position, it becomes inevitable but to grant decree of divorce. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, decree of divorce was drawn. Sanjay Kailash Chandra Upadhyay v. Santosh Sanjay Upadhyay, (HC of MP).

Educational institutions: When the colleges admitted students without complying with the MCI regulations, and such students completing courses under interim protection from the Courts, then, due to the fault of the colleges directed to surrender such number of management seats for the next academic session. Deepa Thomas v. Medical Council of India, (Supreme Court).

Interpretation of criminal law: As conviction under provisions of criminal laws has severe consequences, therefore, the Courts are under an obligation to interpret strictly the circumstances of the case in context of the statutory provisions. Accordingly, held that since the accused did not knew the nature of act committed by him is likely to cause the death, and accordingly, intention of committing death cannot be attributed to the accused, then, in the affirming the right to private defence, the crime held to have been committed under s.304 Part II of Indian Penal Code. Ranjitham v. Basavraj and others, (Supreme Court).

Kidnapping for ransom: According to section 364-A kidnapping for ransom and section 120-B r/w section 34 committing criminal conspiracy is a heinous act. Therefore, in these cases whoever kidnaps or abduct young children for ransom, no leniency be shown in awarding sentence, on the other hand, it must be dealt with in the harshest possible and an obligation rest on the courts as well. Akram Khan v. State of West Bengal, (Supreme Court).

Muslim law: Property: Even though normally any specific item of the undivided property should not be alienated, however, in absence of any restriction, if such transfer does take place then it would not be illegal. Further held, in case of such transfer, the other co-owners may sue for a partial partition of the property so alienated or sold. Akbar Khan v. Faridabi, (HC of MP).

Territorial jurisdiction: Even when the party resides outside the territories of India, however, alleged offence is a consequence of action done by the said party, than such party residing in foreign territories would be deemed to have an integral role in the offence which has finally been committed within Indian territories. Accordingly held that even such parties would be liable for territorial jurisdiction of Courts in India. Lee Kun Hee v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (Supreme Court).

(Supplemented by contributions from Shri Yashowardhan Shukla, IVth year, Amity Law School (AUUP))

FAQ's

Links