Fortnightly Newsletter- July 16, 2018


July 16, 2018


SC: Second FIR can’t be Quashed if there is Discovery of New Facts

Case name: Om Prakash Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors.


In the case two complaints had been filed by the Appellant. The first complaint was quashed by the High Court and the second complaint that had been filed on the discovery of a new fact was also quashed by the High Court. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order on the ground that the law does not prohibit filing second complaint where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour.

Read more here.

SC: Medical Profession owe a Constitutional Duty to Treat the Have-nots

Case name: Union of India v. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust

In this noteworthy case, the Supreme Court Bench has made some key observations highlighting the medical profession and its obligation to treat the have-nots in the society. The Court has stated that land provided to hospitals in concessional rate have to provide free treatment.

Read more here.

SC: Omission of Witness Name in FIR isn’t Fatal to Prosecution Case

Case name: Motiram Padu Joshi v. State of Maharashtra

In the case, the Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices R. Bhanumathi and Ranjan Gogoi have deliberated on some essential aspects of Criminal Law particularly the issue whether relationship can be a ground affecting the credibility of a witness?

Read more here.

BREAKING: SC Upholds Death Penalty in 2012 Nirbhaya Gang Rape case

The much touted Nirbhaya Gang rape case was taken up by Supreme Court, whereby the Supreme Court has upheld death penalty to the convicts in the case.

Read more here.

SC on Burden of Proof in case of Plea of Insanity

Case name: Devidas Loka Rathod v. State of Maharashtra

In this recent case, the Supreme Court discussed the law pertaining to plea of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court in the case has also discussed some important judgments highlighting the law.

Read more here.

Motor Accident Compensation: Is Salary Certificate only basis for Assessing Income?

Case name: United India Insurance v. Indiro Devi & ors.

In the case the Supreme Court while assessing the compensation payable on account of motor accident held that there is nothing in the law which requires the Tribunal to assess the income of the deceased only on the basis of a salary certificate for arriving at a just and fair compensation to be paid to the claimants for the loss of life.

Read more here.

SC Rules NCT of Delhi is not State, Occupies a Special Status

Case name: Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India

In a landmark judgment pronounced by Five Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, the Court has ruled that the NCT of Delhi is not a State and occupies a special status under the Constitution. In this case, the Apex Court has also deliberated on the powers of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) and the extent of power that can be exercised by the LG in matters to be decided by the Delhi Government.

Read more here.

SC:Not Mandatory for Police to Obtain Magistrate’s Order for Taking Fingerprints

Case name: Sonvir @ Somvir v. State of NCT of Delhi

In this recent case, the Two –judge Bench of the Supreme Court seminally analyzed the issue pertaining to securing of prior permission by the Police for investigation under Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920  i.e. for taking of measurements (finger prints) of non-convicted persons.

Read more here.


Can Accused be Acquitted for Non-Appearance of Complainant u/s 256 of CrPC?

Case name: Padam Singh Saini v. Megh Singh

In this recent case, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has opined that if the non-appearance of the complainant for case is unintentional then the same cannot be a ground to acquit the accused under Section 256 of CrPC.

Read more here.

Suicide Committed 2 Months after Writing Suicide Note,Court Quashes FIR u/S. 306 IPC

Case name: Pramod Shriram Telgote v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

In the case, the Court noted that the suicide note is dated 21.02.2013 and the deceased had committed suicide on 04.04.2013 i.e. after two months from the date of alleged suicide note.

In view of the aforesaid and content of the suicide note, the High Court of Bombay was of the view no offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was made out.

Read more here.

Can Court Award Maintenance on Basis of Estimation of Husband’s Income? Read here

Case name: Jagdish Singh v. Sarabjit Kaur

In this case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana enhanced the maintenance pendent lite awarded to the wife on the basis of estimating husband’s income in the absence of any material available on record.

Read more here.

Person is believed to be Innocent until Found Guilty

Case name: Chandra Shekhar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

In this recent case, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has made some remarkable observations pertaining to the legal proposition of presumption of innocence of accused in bail cases. The High Court has also made reference to catena of judgments which highlight the settled position of law.

Read more here.

SARFAESI Act:U/S 17 Aggrieved can approach DRT against District Magistrate’s Order

Case name: Authorized Officer and Chief Manager v. Prafulla Kumar Maheshwari

In the case, the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh while relying on recent judgment in the case Sunil Garg v. Bank of Baroda held that remedy of an aggrieved person against an order passed by District Magistrate is before Debts Recovery Tribunal as provided under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.

Read more here.

Filing Original Arbitration Agreement or Certified Copy is a Mandatory Requirement

Case name: Adivit Noliyal v. State of Uttarakhand & ors.

In this recent case, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reiterated the settled position of law that filing an original arbitration agreement or duly certified copy thereof is a mandatory requirement to refer the matter to the arbitration.

Read more here.

Court Says Retiree has Right to Receive Retiral Benefits within 3 Months

Case name: Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

In this recent case, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana while recognizing the right of a retired person to receive retiral within a reasonable period of three months directed the State to compensate the petitioner by way of interest @9% per annum.

Read more here.

Accused Entitled to Compensation if he is Falsely Implicated in Criminal Case

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a recent case took strong note of the State’s duty to compensate if any injustice has been meted out to its citizens. The High Court in the case awarded compensation of 1 Lac each to the appellants who were falsely implicated in a criminal case.

Read more here.

Uttarakhand HC Prohibits Display of Designation on Private Vehicles

Case name: Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & ors.

The High Court of Uttarakhand has issued a slew of directions in a petition alleging poor road conditions and vulnerable road conditions prone to accidents in the State of Uttarakhand. Subsequently, on basis of directions issued by the Court, the Secretary of the Transport Department submitted report, wherein the Department has inter alia stated that that on Government vehicles/private vehicles, designations/description of offices/unauthorized emblems are being displayed. Words like High Court, Army, Police, Journalists etc. are written on private vehicles which is not permissible in law.

Read more here.

Fine Slapped on Fortis Hospital for Performing Invasive Procedure without Patient’s Consent

Case name: Manmohan Kaur v. M/s Fortis Hospital & Ors.

In this recent case, the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (NCDRC/ National Commission) was confronted with an intriguing concern pertaining to law of medical negligence. Firstly, whether patient’s “consent” is a mandatory requirement before performance of an invasive procedure? Secondly, whether non-explaining of risk involved in medical procedure by a Doctor amounts to medical negligence?

The National Commission in the case ruled in favour of the Complainant and also slapped a fine on the Hospital and Treating Doctor of Rs. 10 lakhs.

Read more here.

Can Senior Citizens Evict Children from their Home? Read this case

Case name: Dattatrey Shivaji Mane v. Lilabai Shivaji Mane & ors.

In this recent case, the Bombay High Court while highlighting the object of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Senior Citizen Act) held that the Act permits a senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his earning or out of property owned by him and if such senior citizen is unable to lead a normal life to apply for such relief i.e. eviction under Section 4 of the Act not only against his children but also the grandchildren.

Read more here.