(661) STATE OF KARANTAKA AND OTHERS Vs. B.G. PRAKASH KUMAR AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 22-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 227, 239 — Discharge of Accused — Stage for Consideration — Post Framing of Charge — The stage for considering discharge of an accused under Section 227 (Sessions trial) or Section 239 (Magistrate trial - warrant case) is prior to the framing of charges — Once charges have been framed, the trial court lacks the power under these sections or any other provision of the Code to discharge the accused — Following the framing of charge, the trial must proceed t India Law Library Docid # 2424358
(662) SHYAMLAL AND OTHERS Vs. RAMBAI AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 22-03-2025 Stamp Act, 1899 — Section 33 & Section 48B (Chhattisgarh State Amendment) — Power to Impound Document — Limitation — The duty and power of a Court under Section 33 of the Stamp Act to examine and impound an instrument that appears insufficiently stamped upon its production is distinct from, and not curtailed by, the limitation period prescribed under the proviso to Section 48B (State Amendment) which restricts the Collector’s power to initiate action regarding deficiency noticed from a copy afte India Law Library Docid # 2424702
(663) MANISH GAWALE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 22-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 306 read with Section 107 — Abetment of Suicide — Ingredients — Instigation or Intentional Aid — To establish the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide or engaged in a conspiracy, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide by an act or illegal omission, as defined under Section 107 IPC — There must be clear mens rea and a positive act by t India Law Library Docid # 2424703
(664) INDER SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-03-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State, if “sufficient cause” is shown and substantial justice is served, balancing between adherence to limitation and the pursuit of meritorious claims —Supreme Court upholds the condonation of a 1537-day delay in the State's second appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach when substantial justice is at stake, particularly in cases invol India Law Library Docid # 2423720
(665) DHIRUBHAI BHAILALBHAI CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-03-2025 Penal Code (IPC), 1860 — Sections 143, 147 and 149 — Conviction for Unlawful Assembly — Necessity of Proof Beyond Mere Presence — Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances — Supreme Court sets aside the High Court's conviction of six individuals for rioting and related offences, restoring their acquittal, as thei India Law Library Docid # 2423721
(666) SUDAM PRABHAKAR ACHAT Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 21-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 300, 302 and 304 — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served — Supreme Court partly allows an appeal, converting a conviction under Section 302 to Section 304, considering the lack of premeditation and the time already serve India Law Library Docid # 2423722
(667) HARPREET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. KAVITA CHAUDHARY[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 452, 511, 503, 504, 350, 34 and 211 — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 204(2) — The requirement of filing a list of prosecution witnesses under Section 204(2) of the Cr.P.C. is generally directory, and the absence of such a list does not automatically vitiate the summoning order unless a failure of justice has occurred — High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated upon a complaint, holding that the learned Magist India Law Library Docid # 2423796
(668) AMIT CHOPRA AND OTHERS Vs. JITENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Fatal Accident — Enhancement — Deceased aged 44 ½ years, Permanent Employee (Bank Clerk-cum-Cashier) — Tribunal applied correct multiplier (14) but erred in deducting 1/3rd instead of 1/4th for personal expenses (implicitly assuming 4-6 dependents) and failed to award future prospects & adequate conventional heads — Held, applying principles from Sarla Verma India Law Library Docid # 2423956
(669) KAMALJIT KAUR AND OTHERS Vs. NARINDERJIT SINGH AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Fatal Accident — Enhancement — Deceased aged 52 years, Permanent Employee (JBT Teacher) — Tribunal applied incorrect multiplier (6 instead of 11) and incorrect deduction for personal expenses (1/3rd instead of 1/4th) — Failed to award future prospects and adequate conventional heads — Held, applying principles laid down in Sarla Verma (2009) and Pranay Sethi (2017), correct multiplier is 11; deduction for personal expenses is 1/4th; future India Law Library Docid # 2423957
(670) SHAKUNTALA AND OTHERS Vs. MURTI DEVI AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Section 104, Order 43 Rule 1 — Temporary Injunction — Trinity Test — Necessity of Reasoning — Grant of temporary injunction requires the court to satisfy the well-established 'trinity test' — An impugned order granting injunction restraining defendants from construction and alienation, which lacks reasoning on how the plaintiffs established a prima facie case regarding their India Law Library Docid # 2423971
(671) NARINDER KUMAR Vs. USHA RANI TUTEJA AND OTHERS[DELHI HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Section 63 — Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 68 — Probate Proceedings — Proof of Will — Suspicious Circumstances — Onus on Propounder — The propounder seeking probate bears the onus of proving due execution of the Will as per S. 63 of the Succession Act and S. 68 of the Evidence Act — Crucially, the propounder must dispel all legitimate suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution to the satisfaction of the court's conscience — Failure to remove such doubts India Law Library Docid # 2423972
(672) SHRI VIKRAMBHAI PATEL Vs. M/S PRAVEEN GROUP OF CONSTRUCTIONS[MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — Maintainability — Second Petition — A subsequent petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order is not maintainable if the same ground was raised or available to be raised in a prior petition under Section 482 CrPC which was dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed — Permitting successive petitions on grounds available earlier constitutes an abuse of process, preventing parties from raising pleas in instalments. (Bhisham Lal Verma; Vinod Kumar, IA India Law Library Docid # 2424152
(673) NAVNEET SHAH Vs. MOOL CHAND AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 9 Rule 13 — Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree — Irregularity in Service vs. Knowledge of Proceedings — An ex parte decree cannot be set aside solely on the ground of irregularity in the service of summons if the Court is convinced, based on material on record, that the defendant had knowledge of the suit proceedings and could have appeared — Even if the applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 establishes some irregularity in service, the application is liable to be dismiss India Law Library Docid # 2424153
(674) ABHIJEET BENIWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Passports Act, 1967 — Sections 6(2)(f), 10, 22 — Passports Rules, 1980 — Rule 12 — Passport Renewal — Pendency of Criminal Case — Gazette Notification G.S.R. 570(E) — The mere pendency of a criminal case does not automatically restrict the issuance or renewal of a passport to a period less than the standard 10 years prescribed by Rule 12. Gazette Notification G.S.R. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993, which permits shorter validity contingent on court orders, does not override the India Law Library Docid # 2424164
(675) MR. SUNIL ABRAHAM Vs. MS. REETH ABRAHAM[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 17, Section 21 — Admission in Pleadings — Effect of Withdrawal of Petition — Evidentiary Value — An admission made in pleadings, such as a joint petition for mutual consent divorce, generally binds the maker — The subsequent withdrawal of the petition does not automatically efface the contents or destroy the evidentiary effect of the admission contained therein — However, an admission is not conclusive proof and can be explained away by its maker — Its weight depends India Law Library Docid # 2424341
(676) FRANK ANTHONY @ FRANK Vs. STATE BY CCB P.S.[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Sections 218, 219, 220(1) — Joint Trial vs. Separate Trials — Offences of Same Kind vs. Offences in Same Transaction — Prejudice — Section 218 Cr.P.C. mandates separate trials for distinct offences, with Sections 219 to 223 providing exceptions — Section 219 permits joint trial for up to three offences “of the same kind” committed within twelve months — Offences are of the same kind if punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section India Law Library Docid # 2424380
(677) C. RAJ Vs. E. GIRIJA[MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)] 21-03-2025 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13(1A)(ii) — Divorce post-[Restitution of conjugal rights] RCR Decree — Maintainability of Fresh Petition: A fresh petition for divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) is maintainable based on the distinct cause of action arising from non-resumption of cohabitation for over one year following a decree for restitution of conjugal rights (RCR) — The petitioner is not obligated to seek restoration of a India Law Library Docid # 2424421
(678) MOHAMMED FARUK Vs. UNION OF INDIA[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 317 & 70(2) — Dispensing with Appearance / Recall of Warrant — Exercise of Judicial Discretion — Natural Justice — The powers vested in a trial court under Section 317 CrPC (to dispense with personal appearance) and Section 70(2) CrPC (to recall a warrant) are discretionary — Such discretion must be exercised judiciously, with care and caution, balancing the individual’s liberty (Article 21, Constitution of India) against the interests of trial India Law Library Docid # 2424422
(679) PUTTAPPA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Criminal Law — Circumstantial Evidence — Standard of Proof — Panchsheel Principles — Unbroken Chain — In cases resting solely on circumstantial evidence, conviction requires the prosecution to firmly establish each circumstance forming a complete and unbroken chain that unerringly points only towards the guilt of the accused, excluding every other possible hypothesis consistent with their innocence — A break in the chain India Law Library Docid # 2424423
(680) MANIKANDAN Vs. STATE[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 21-03-2025 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 2(d), 5(l), 6 — Consent of Minor — Immateriality — The consent of a ‘child’ (person below 18 years, as defined in Section 2(d)) is immaterial for establishing offences involving penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act — Arguments based on alleged love affair or consent provided by the minor victim do not India Law Library Docid # 2424424