Terms of Use – Re Legal

1

AR Rahman faces setback in copyright suit before Delhi High Court over 'Veera Raja Veera' song. Among other directions, the Court also ordered Rahman and Madras Talkies to deposit ₹2 crore with the Registry during the pendency of the copyright suit.
1

Supreme Court pulls up Rahul Gandhi for remarks against Savarkar but stays summons. The Court warned Gandhi that it will initiate suo motu action if he makes similar statements.
1

Savarkar defamation case: Pune court allows plea by Rahul Gandhi to bring historical evidence on record. Since Gandhi has claimed that his statements were based on historical facts, the trial would have to be held as a summons trial to allow detailed evidence and cross-examination of witnesses, the Court said.
1

Delhi court says Medha Patkar will not be jailed for defaming Delhi LG VK Saxena
Medha Patkar was sentenced to five months in jail by the trial court. However, the sessions court said the offence was not grave enough to warrant imprisonment.
1

A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court to halt the administration of oath to Justice Yashwant Varma who was recently transferred from Delhi to Allahabad amidst an in-house probe against him over allegations of possessing illicit cash.

Today’s

Anticipatory Bail in cases of Financial Fraud- IPC/ CrPC / Companies Act 2013
The Supreme Court emphasised that anticipatory bail should not be granted to persons accused of serious economic fraud under Section 212(6) read along with Section 447 (Punishment for fraud) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to individuals accused by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The SFIO was conducting an investigation into the allegation of fraud in the Adarsh Group. The SFIO had filed a criminal complaint alleging serious economic offences under the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Anticipatory bail was granted under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail had disregarded the mandatory statutory conditions for bail in fraud cases. The High Court did not ensure that the Public Prosecutor’s opposition was properly considered. It also did not demonstrate that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the accused were not guilty of committing fraud. The judges also noted that the High Court had overlooked the accused’s conduct of evading legal processes under the Companies Act. The top court upheld the bail conditions. Serious Fraud Investigation Office v Aditya Sarda 9 April 2025 Citations: 2025 INSC 477 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(9) Bench: Justices B.M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale Key words/phrases: Section 212(6)—Section 447—Companies Act, 2013—grant of anticipatory bail in cases of fraud—no reasonable ground to believe innocence—accused shows history of misconduct—restrictive bail conditions upheld. Read the Judgement here. Case Comment Held, In the instant case, the Special Court considering the seriousness of the alleged offences had initially issued bailable warrants, however, the Respondents kept on avoiding the execution of such warrants and did not appear before the Special Court though fully aware about the pendency of the complaint proceedings against them. The Special Court therefore had to pass detailed orders from time to time for the issuance of non-bailable warrants, and thereafter had also initiated the Proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of the Code, for requiring respondents to appear before it. The High Court however without paying any heed to the proceedings conducted by the Special Court against the respondents, and ignoring the well settled legal position, granted anticipatory bail to the Respondents vide the impugned orders. As discussed earlier, the said Orders being perverse and untenable at law, cannot be allowed to be sustained, and deserve to be set aside. Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/ #legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #sec447 #sec212(6) #anticipatorybail #fraud #conduct #reasonable ground

Yesterday’s

Preliminary Enquiry Not Necessary to Register FIR in Corruption Cases- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Supreme Court held that a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases, while desirable, is not mandatory under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court was hearing appeals against a Karnataka High Court decision which had quashed an FIR against Sri Channakeshava H.D., a public servant accused of corruption. The High Court noted that the Superintendent of Police had not conducted a preliminary enquiry before approving the investigation and hence there was no application of mind. Relying on Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014), P. Sirajuddin v State of Madras (1970) and State of Karnataka v T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (2025), the Supreme Court clarified that while preliminary enquiries may be advisable in corruption cases, they are not mandatory unless specified by law. The Court found the approval granted to the FIR by the Superintendent of Police valid. The Court reiterated that an accused public servant has no inherent right to be heard before registration of an FIR. State of Karnataka v Sri Channakeshava H.D. 8 April 2025 Citations: 2025 INSC 471 | 2025 SCO.LR 4(8) Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia and K.V. Chandran Case Comment: In State of Karnataka v. Sri Channakeshava. H.D. (April 8, 2025), the Supreme Court of India ruled that a preliminary inquiry is not a mandatory requirement under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) for initiating a First Information Report (FIR) against a public servant. The court emphasized that the existence of credible material, such as a source report, considered by a competent officer like the Superintendent of Police, is sufficient to justify registering a case. Key words/phrases: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—registration of FIR—corruption—public servant—preliminary enquiry not mandatory—accused has no inherent right to be heard Read the Judgement here. Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/ #legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #POCA #corruption #preliminaryenquiry #publicservant #registrationofFIR #mandatory

Terms And condition