Terms of Use – Re Legal

1

Relationship turning sour cannot be ground to book man for rape on false promise of marriage: Supreme Court
The Court observed that such cases not only burdens the Courts but also brings disrepute to an individual accused of such a heinous offence.
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.

Today’s

Threat of life or injury for extortion does not need transfer of property
The Supreme Court held that delivery of property is not necessary to charge a person under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for “putting a person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion.” The Court clarified that Section 387 criminalises a step prior to the actual extortion where property delivery is essential. The complainant and the accused run companies with the same name, M/S Balaji Traders and are involved in an ongoing intellectual property dispute. The complainant claimed that the accused threatened him with rifles, asking him to close down his business or pay five lakh rupees every month. The Trial Court found a prima facie offence under Section 387 and issued summons. The Allahabad High Court found that for a Section 387 offence to be made out, the victim must have transferred property or security to the accused. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court decision. The Bench held that Sections 385, 387, and 389 IPC are designed to punish the accused for an act committed for the purpose of extortion and not extortion itself. M/S. Balaji Traders v The State of U.P. 5 June 2025 Citations: 2025 INSC 806 | 2025 SCO.LR 6(1)[4] Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra Read the Judgement here. Case Comment Held, Without going into the merits of the case, we are of the view that the instant case is not fit for quashing as the two essential ingredients for prosecution under Section 387 IPC, as discussed supra have been prima facie disclosed in the complaint, (a) that the complainant has been put in fear of death by pointing a gun towards him; and (b) that it was done to pressurize him to deliver Rs.5 lakhs. The High Court, while quashing, has wrongly emphasized the fact that the said amount was not delivered; it failed to consider whether the money/property was delivered or not, is not even necessary as the accused is not charged with Section 384 IPC. The allegations of putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt would itself make him liable to be prosecuted under Section 387 IPC. The natural corollary thereof is that the allegation of the criminal case being a counterblast is negated. 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 # sec387 #extortion #death #grievoushurt #transferofproperty #offence #crime Key words/phrases: Section 387 IPC — Property transfer not essential — Threat of death or grievous hurt — Intellectual Property dispute — Prima facie offence upheld — Allahabad High Court decision overturned — Strict interpretation of criminal law

Yesterday’s

Appellate Court Cannot Enhance Sentence
The Supreme Court held that the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence in cases where the appeal is filed by the accused. The appellant trespassed into the house of his neighbour and hugged her. She later committed suicide. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 354 and 448 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and acquitted him of the charge under Section 306 of IPC. The High Court dismissed his appeal against his conviction. Using its suo moto Criminal Revision Petition, it convicted the appellant under Sections 306 and sentenced him with rigorous imprisonment for five years. The Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot act as a revisional court, particularly when no appeal or revision has been filed either by the State, victim or complainant for seeking enhancement of sentence against accused. No appellant, by filing an appeal, can be made worse-off than what he was. Nagarajan v State of Tamil Nadu 4 June 2025 Citations: 2025 INSC 802 | 2024 SCO.LR 6(1)[2] Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma Read the Judgement here. Case Comment: In the instant case, the appellant/accused herein had filed the appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC. Insofar as Section 306 of IPC is concerned, the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said conviction under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC, the appellant had filed the appeal before the High Court. Neither the State, nor the victim or complainant had sought for enhancement of sentence, or sought for conviction and sentence under Section 306 of IPC before the High Court when the appellant had filed his appeal seeking setting aside of his conviction and sentence. The High Court, instead of considering the said appeal filed by the appellant on merits, sought to exercise suo motu revisional powers for convicting the appellant under Section 306 of IPC also and thereby sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The sentences were to run concurrently. Thus, a conviction awarded for offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC has also resulted in a conviction under Section 306 of IPC and an enhanced sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by none other than the appellant. Held, We are of the view that in an appeal filed by the accused/convict and in the absence of any appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the State, the High Court cannot exercise suo motu revision either to enhance the sentence or to convict the appellant on any other charge. The reasons for coming to such a conclusion have been discussed above. 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 #Sec354 #suomotorevisionalpower #SC #enhancementofsentence Key word/phrases: High Court overruled—Charge of trespass and outraging of modesty—Trial Court convicts accused for trespass and outraging of modesty—finds evidence insufficient for abetment of suicide—High Court uses its suo moto revisional powers—finds appellant guilty and enhances sentence—Supreme Court finds High Court has no such power

Terms And condition