Criminal Law

High Court’s power under this section cannot be used to undermine a statutory dictate, in present case provided under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). In this view, the amount remitted to the bank account of respondent1 by corporate debtor / company without any authority from appellant, held, was […]

SC had passed interim order pertaining to the mutual funds for a period of six months. However, the pandemic situation delayed hearing of accompanying appeal and consequently the resolution of the case. Thus, interim order was modified to the extent that MF units kept with R1 be released subject to the applicant furnishing requisite bank

Stage of framing of charge: Principles that must keep in mind by High Court while exercising jurisdiction under S. 482 at the stage of framing of charges. Held, High Court committed grave error in quashing charge sheet / entire criminal proceedings as there is ample material to show at least a prima facie case against the

In the instant case, when High Court quashed criminal proceedings, the IO had after doing the investigation and collecting the evidence, had filed the charge sheet before Magistrate for offences under Ss 147,148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even Magistrate took the cognizance of the same. High court lost sight of crucial aspects

S.197 CrPC seeks to protect officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of offence committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits court from taking cognizance of such offence except with previous sanction of competent authority. At the same time, such shield cannot protect corrupt officers and

In this case, as High Court exercised its power of granting ad interim protection from arrest to accused without recording any reasons,, the least that is expected by the High Court is to record some reasons as to why it chooses to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction. Matter remitted back to High Court for decision afresh

Hence, their conviction was not maintainable on probability. They were entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, their conviction stood set aside. (2021) 7 SCC 204 [R. Natarajan v. State of T.N.]

Held, High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail in present case mainly on ground that magistrate’s direction for investigation S. 156(3) CrPC was doubtful as complainant had not been examined on oath as required  under S 200 CrPC, though complaint was supported by affidavit. Furthermore, relevant considerations for grant of anticipatory bail had not been

Held, in terms of Sec 20, in all cases where the accused was above 16 years but below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence, the proceedings pending in the court would continue and be taken to the logical end subject to an exception that even if it is held that Amrat Ram

Held, The objective is clear that in cases of offences against body, compensation to victim should be methodology for redemption. Hence compensation cannot be determined at stage of consideration of grant of bail. Hence direction in impugned order of High Court regarding deposit of compensation cannot be sustained. However, this does not rule out the