Criminal Law

Effect of non obstante clause occurring in the 1986 Act: A divorced Muslim woman can maintain a petition under S. 125 CrPC, despite enactment of the 1986 Act. Non obstante clause occurring in Ss. 3 and 4 of the 1986 Act cannot be deemed to override the rights so provided by S. 125 CrPC. Equivalent […]

Issue relating to whether Family Court has jurisdiction to try application filed by a divorced Muslim woman for maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and whether Family Court can convert the petition for maintenance under S. 125 CrPC to one under S. 3 or S. 4 of the 1986

Mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the husband’s behest coupled with non-compliance with that decree by wife, held, would not by itself be sufficient to attract aforesaid disqualification under S. 125(4) CrPC,  [Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, (2025) 3 SCC 33]   Case comment  Will a husband, who secures

There is no need to implead them in bail applications filed by foreign nationals. There is no propriety in issuing a direction that either Civil Authority or Registration Officer should be made a party to a bail application filed by a foreigner or a notice of bail application be issued to said authorities,  [Frank Vitus

Bank officials are not covered under this section. S. 197 protects only public servants whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government and not every public servant.  [A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma, (2023) 8 SCC 711]  Case Comment: It is pertinent to note that the banking sector being governed by the

Grant of bail, by High Court to accused-respondents in this case, charge-sheeted after investigation for offences under Ss. 302, 307, 201 and 120-B IPC, by non-speaking order, and without taking into consideration any of material forming part of charge-sheet even to find out whether there is any material collected during the   investigation   involving the   accused  

In cases/offences punishable with imprisonment for term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whether with or without fine, and cases under S. 498-A IPC or S. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, directions issued for strict compliance with directions issued in Arnesh Kumar, (2014) 8 SCC 273

Ingredients, scope and powers bestowed on court under S. 319, explained. It is, thus, manifested from a conjoint reading of the cited decisions that power of summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised routinely and the existence of more than a prima facie case is sine quo non to summon an additional

Law with regard to evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession as succinctly laid down in Munna Kumar Upadhyay, (2012) 6 SCC 174, commended to be followed as locus classicus. Held, The observations of this Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab3: ………It hardly needs to be emphasised that in cases where injuries are

Condition imposed for release of seized funds subject to bank guarantee equivalent to amount is invalid when accused not connected with the Company entitled to such funds and also discharged of alleged offence. Freezing of assets and imposition of bank guarantee against appellant is not permissible where investigation against the appellant Company, itself is rendered