Sh. Mursalin A. Shaikh v. Shri Dhruv Rathee and Ors
-
-
BENCH
:Justice Shyam Chandak and Justice Mohite Dere
-
FORUM
: Bombay High Court
-
A petition has been filed in the Bombay High Court seeking contempt proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders Uddhav Thackeray, Aditya Thackeray, Sanjay Raut and YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, for allegedly interfering in a sub-judice matter.
-
As per the petition, the respondents Rahul Gandhi and others, had posted on the social media platform 'X', a story by newspaper 'Mid-Day', about an FIR being registered for hacking of EVMs allegedly by the family members of Ravindra Waikar, a Shiv Sena Leader from the Shinde faction. The petition claims that the said news item was factually wrong and the newspaper had issued an apology for the same. However, the respondents continued to create false narratives about the issue.
-
The petitioner seeks to take action against the respondents for “their highly unlawful activities by spreading false narratives and conspiracy theories and interfering with the investigation and due process of law.”
-
The petition further alleges that Dhruv Rathee and other respondents are habitual in creating false narratives and conspiracy theories to prejudice pending investigation and sub-judice cases. It alleges that they try to mislead the people and influence the citizens by creating different perceptions to serve their "ulterior purposes".
-
The petitioner has contended that the act of the respondents is in violation of Bombay High Court's order in
Nilesh Navlakha vs Union of India (2021
), where guidelines were laid down for the media to avoid resorting to 'media trial'.
-
As per the petition, the conduct of the respondents is in clear violation of the judgment which declared that media trial or any attempt to interfere with a sub-judice matter will be a criminal contempt and be punishable under
Section 2(c)
of the Contempt of Courts Act. The matter was listed before the division bench of Justice Shyam Chandak and Justice Mohite-Dere.
-
The petitioner had filed an interim application seeking recusal of Justice Revati Mohite-Dere from hearing the instant matter on the ground that Justice Dere's sister is closely associated with Sharad Pawar's Nationalist Congress Party (NCP).
-
The bench refused to hear the main matter itself saying it was wrongly placed before it. The petitioners have been asked to approach the Chief Justice and seek listing of their plea before an appropriate bench.
-
The petitioner prays for punishing the respondents under
Section 2(b) and 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Further, the petitioner prayed the court to direct police officials to register FIR against the respondents for misusing public machinery and creating false evidence with regard to pending investigation under
Sections 192, 193, 107, 409, 120(b) and 34
of IPC.
-
The petitioner also prayed for constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) including CBI, IB and ED to investigate “…in the greater conspiracy to spread false narratives and conspiracy theories...” and “…spreading hatred and disharmony among citizens about various Government institutions and also against the country with ulterior motive of obstructing the progress and development of this country.”
Bincy Suresh and Others v. State of Kerala
-
-
BENCH
: Justice C. S. Dias
-
FORUM
: Kerala High Court
-
Kerala High Court denies anticipatory bail to the accused who allegedly tied an HIV patient in their care home to the window and beat her with a wooden log. She suffered multiple fractures.
-
The complaint was given by the victim herself. The Investigating Officer submitted before the Court that it is learnt that the petitioners treat their inmates in a very inhuman manner.
-
He stated that custodial interrogation and recovery is necessary for full investigation. The petitioners denied all allegations. They submitted that the petitioner has low immunity as she is suffering from HIV.
-
She is suffering from osteoporosis. The fracture occurred due to the disease. They further contended that the victim has some mental abrasions and the petitioner had informed about this to the Mental Health Centre.
-
The Court had directed the Government Medical College Hospital to examine the victim.
-
The Head of Orthopedics told the investigating officer that the fractures were due to assault. The Consulting Psychiatrist of Medical College reported that the victim had told her that she was brutally assaulted by the petitioners.
-
Petitioner's bail application was rejected by the Ernakulam Sessions Court with the observation that the materials establish petitioner's involvement in the crime
-
Justice C. S. Dias observed that the prima facie materials establish the petitioner's involvement in the crime. The Court refused to grant them anticipatory bail saying that custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be done.
Sindhu v. State of Kerala and Others
-
-
BENCH
: Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu
-
FORUM
: Kerala High Court
-
The Kerala High Court declared that under the provisions of the Kerala Anti–Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA), the District Magistrate does not have the power to fix the period of detention.
-
Only the Government can fix the period, that too, after receiving the report of the Advisory Board. The Court Observed: “Only the Government is vested with the power to fix the period of detention under
Section 10(4)
.
-
The power exclusively vested with the Government under
Section 10(4)
of KAAPA to fix the period of detention can be exercised only after receiving the report of the Advisory Board.” The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu added that any scheme of preventive detention should be in harmony with
Article 22
of the Constitution.
-
As per
Article 22(4)
, a person cannot be committed to preventive detention for more than 3 months unless there is a report from the Advisory Committee with an opinion that there are reasons to detain the person for a longer period.
-
The son of the petitioner in the case was committed to preventive detention for a period of one year by the District Magistrate. The petitioner contended that the Collector cannot fix the detention period. The Act exclusively vests this authority with the Government.
-
The Government Pleader submitted that the Home Department of the State by a letter had asked the District Magistrate to propose the period of detention while issuing the detention order.
-
This order was later modified and the District Magistrates were instructed that there was no need to mention the period of detention. In this case, the order was issued while the earlier instruction was in force.
-
The High Court observed that under
Section 3
of the KAAPA, the Government can only delegate the powers of issuing an initial order of detention.
-
That order has to be approved by the Government within 12 days. Otherwise, the order will no longer be in force. It said that the Government has to place before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the detention order has been made within 3 weeks from the date of detention. The Board has to submit its report to the Government within 9 weeks from the date of detention.
-
If the Board says that there is sufficient cause for the detention, the Government can continue the detention for the time it thinks fit. If the Board is of the opinion that there is no sufficient cause for detention, the person has to be released at once.
-
Thus, the Court observed that only the Government can fix the period of detention. The Act does not contemplate fixing of period of detention while issuing the initial order of detention.
-
The Government Pleader argued that the order need not be invalidated because it mentions the period of detention.
-
The period mentioned in the order is of no consequence. The Government has to confirm the order if the person is to be detained for more than 12 days. Further, the continuation of detention will depend on the report of the Advisory Committee.
-
If the Advisory committee opines that there is sufficient cause to continue detention, the Government will then have to specify the period of detention.
-
The Court rejected this argument relying on the Supreme Court judgment in
Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab (1951)
.
-
The Supreme Court had held that a direction to keep the detenu under detention for a specific period would tend to prejudice a fair consideration of his case before the Advisory Board.
-
The High Court held that in preventive detention, the law should be followed strictly and any deviations or dilutions will render the detention invalid.
-
The Court is also required to interpret the law strictly as liberty of the individual is at stake.
-
The detention order even goes against
Article 22
of the Constitution.
-
Thus, the error goes to the root of the matter and hence the order cannot be saved.
-
The person was earlier detained for a period of 6 months under KAAPA and was released on 27.10.2023. He was later involved in two more criminal cases. The present detention order was passed in an issue that occurred on 22.02.2024.
-
The petitioner argued that even though the petitioner was in judicial custody and all the materials relied on for passing the detention order were already available, the District Magistrate passed the order only on 04.05.2024.
-
There is a delay of more than 2 months. Therefore, the live link essential for sustaining the detention order was snapped in the case and hence the detention is invalid. To this, the Government Pleader submitted that the authority submitted the proposal of preventive detention when there was a chance of the detenu being released on bail and committing prejudicial activities again.
-
The Court said that there was no culpable delay. It is only reasonable for the authorities to move when there is a chance of the person being released under regular bail.
-
If at the initial period, where the chance of granting bail is remote, the authorities had no reason to apprehend that he would be involved in activities affecting public tranquility as he was already in prison.
-
The Court ordered the release of the petitioner's son if he was not required in any other proceedings.
Also Check:
Daily Legal Current Affairs 11 July 2024
X v. State of Kerala
-
-
BENCH
: Justice A. Badharudeen
-
FORUM
: Kerala High Court
-
The Kerala High Court has held that a woman's partner who is not legally married cannot be prosecuted under
Section 498A
of the IPC for the offence of cruelty. The Court clarified that husband means married man, woman's partner in marriage and does encompass a woman's partner without legal marriage for prosecution under
Section 498A
of the IPC.
-
Justice A. Badharudeen thus quashed the proceedings against the petitioner who was the live-in partner of the complainant woman. “Thus, it appears that in order to attract an offence punishable under
Section 498(A)
of IPC, the most essential ingredient is, subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or relative/relatives of the husband.
-
The term 'husband @ hubby' means, a married man, woman's partner in marriage. Thus, marriage is the constituent which takes the woman's partner to the status of her husband.
-
Marriage means a marriage in the eye of law. Thus, without a legal marriage, if a man becomes a woman's partner, he will not be covered by the term 'husband' for the purpose of
Section 498(A)
of IPC.” The petitioner has approached the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings lodged against him by the woman who was his live-in partner.
-
The allegation was that the petitioner mentally and physically harassed the woman from March 2023 to August 2023 while they were having a live-in relationship.
-
The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the relationship between the petitioner and complainant was a live-in relationship and there was no legal marriage between them to attract an offence under
Section 498A
by relying upon
Unnikrishnan @ Chandu v. State of Kerala (2017)
and
Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2023)
.
-
The Court referred to
Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002)
, where the Apex Court laid down that valid marital relationship must be there for prosecution under
Section 498A
of the IPC.
-
The Court observed that to attract an offence under
Section 498A
, offence of cruelty must be committed by the husband or relatives of the husband.
-
It stated that a man who was a woman's partner without legal marriage cannot be prosecuted under
Section 498A
.
-
Under the facts of the case, the Court stated that the petitioner would not come under the term 'husband' under
Section 498A
of the IPC since they were not legally married. The Court thus allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
VINOD v. State N.C.T. Of Delhi
-
-
BENCH
: Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma
-
FORUM
: Delhi High Court
-
The Delhi High Court has directed all the police stations in the national capital to ensure that there shall be no waiting period for 24 hours to start inquiry or investigation in cases of missing children.
-
A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma directed the Commissioner of Delhi Police to give directions to all the police stations that the waiting period of 24 hours is “wholly unnecessary” and that whenever a complaint is received, the inquiry or investigation should immediately commence.
-
Referring to Delhi Police's standing order and the SOP issued by Union Ministry of Women and Child Welfare concerning missing children cases, the bench said: “The above SOPs makes it adequately clear that action has to be taken immediately, promptly, forthwith and at once. There is no scope for any speculation or conjecture that the child may return home in 24 hours and hence the police can wait.”
-
It said that the first 24 hour-period is the crucial or critical period when steps for tracing the missing person or child could lead to a positive outcome.
-
The court was dealing with a habeas corpus plea moved by a father seeking production of her minor daughter missing since February. It was his case that on approaching the Police Station to lodge a complaint, the Police instructed him to wait for 24 hours presuming that the minor girl may return within that period.
-
He again approached the Police Station and a 'missing person report' was registered instead of FIR for the offence of kidnapping. He claimed that no proper investigation was conducted by the Police. The court observed that the 24 hour delay may result in the child being taken outside the jurisdiction of the Court or some untoward incident taking place. In the case in hand, the court said that the initial waiting for 24 hours by the police before registering or filing a complaint caused delay in tracing the minor girl.
-
“Thus, in the case of complaints relating to children going missing, irrespective of whether the child is a minor or a major; waiting for the 24 hour period could result in crucial time being wasted,” the court said.
-
It added: “Therefore, it is extremely important that immediate investigation and inquiries be conducted by the police/investigating agencies without waiting for 24 hours under the presumption that the person/child may return home.”
-
The bench transferred the matter to the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (Crime Branch) of Delhi Police and directed it to conduct “immediate and diligent investigation” under the supervision of a Senior Officer not below the rank of an ACP.
Also Check:
Daily Legal Current Affairs 10 July 2024
Fayaz Ahmad Wani v. Mst Hameeda
-
-
BENCH
: : Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul
-
FORUM
: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
-
-
-
The case involved a petition where the husband claimed to have divorced his wife through the pronouncement of Talaak. He sought to quash the maintenance proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., arguing that his obligations ceased following the divorce.
-
Initially, the Trial Court, after thorough examination of the evidence and the case presented by both parties, ruled in favor of the wife.
-
The husband then approached the Revisional Court, which took into account statements from two individuals, Nazir Ahmad Bhat and Ghulam Mohammad Rather, who testified that they had informed the wife about the husband's intention to divorce.
-
However, the wife did not accept the proposal, and reconciliation efforts failed. The Revisional Court thus set aside the Trial Court's order and directed the husband to pay Rs. 3000 per month as maintenance.
-
Assailing the same the husband contended that he had lawfully divorced his wife by pronouncing Talaak three times and had no further maintenance obligations.
-
The wife maintained that the divorce was neither validly pronounced nor executed, and the husband failed to follow due process required under Shariat Law.
-
After considering the rival contentions Justice Koul highlighted that mere pronouncement of Talaak is insufficient.
-
It must be proven that genuine efforts were made by both parties' representatives to resolve their disputes, which unfortunately did not succeed due to no fault of the husband, the bench underscored.
-
Citing
Mohammad Naseem Bhat v. Bilquees Akhter and another, (2012)
of J&K High Court the court mandated that the husband must strictly prove all conditions related to the divorce, including the presence of witnesses and the period during which Talaak was pronounced, before he can be relieved from his maintenance obligations.
-
In the instant case the court noted that the efforts for reconciliation were not coming to fore as the decision of divorcing respondent was conveyed to respondent and there had been no sufficient evidence to establish reconciliation from the side of petitioner. “The Revisional Court has also rightly considered the rival contentions of the parties and come up with impugned judgment, setting-aside the Trial Court order dated 5th February 2018 and directing petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month to respondent as maintenance”, the bench remarked.
-
In light of these observations the husband's petition was dismissed, upholding the Revisional Court's directive for maintenance payments.
Daily Legal Current Affairs Practice Questions 12 July 2024 for Judiciary Exams
Q1) Criminal contempt under the Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 means the publication by-
a) By words-spoken or written
b) By signs or by visible representation
c) Both (a) and (b)
d) None of the above
Ans.(c )
Q2) Under section 409 of the IPC Criminal breach of trust by:
a) public servant
b) banker
c) merchant or agent
d) All of the above
Ans.(d)
Q3) Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which _________
a) may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine
b) may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine
c) may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine
d) None of the above
Ans.(b)
Q4) ‘ Procedure of Advisory Board and further action’ has been provided under ________ of the The Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007
a) Section 9
b) Section 10
c) Section 11
d) Section 12
Ans.(b)
Q5) Under Article 22(4) of Indian Constitution ,no law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than ___________
a) One month
b) Two months
c) Three months
d) Six months
Ans.( c )
