Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Calcutta High Court stated that the documents presented by the petitioner which mention her as wife are mere declarations, subject to proof, if challenged.
The Calcutta High Court opined that the trial court failed to consider the provisions of Section 65 which allow for alternate methods of service when due diligence fails.
“Criminal defamation is not a disproportionate restriction on free speech, because protection of reputation is a fundamental right as well as a human right.”
Calcutta High Court deemed the criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of law and allowed the revisional application.
Calcutta High Court noted that the impugned notice has not been produced before the Court, thus not proved, the case’s foundation is wrong and thus not maintainable.
Section 144(5) of the CrPC empowers any Magistrate can rescind or alter an order made under this section.
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 “is a beneficial legislation, for the benefit of the workmen and not paying the compensation since 2007 is clearly an abuse of the process of law.”
Calcutta High Court acknowledged that LIC had indeed transferred the amount and issued a certificate to employer, enabling them to file the statutory appeal.
While allowing the revisional application, Calcutta High Court quashed the impugned proceeding on the ground of lack of substantial evidence to prima facie substantiate the offenses against the wife.
The Calcutta High Court held the power under Section 319 of the CrPC should be exercised sparingly and based on strong and cogent evidence, not mere probability of complicity.
In the instant matter of cheque bounce, on the date of presentation of the cheque, the company which allegedly issued the cheque was no more existence.
Calcutta High Court held that there is no substantial evidence against the petitioner, and hence, allowing the case to proceed would be an abuse of the legal process.
Calcutta High Court noted that the victim was a minor on the date of the alleged suicide, which prima facie invoked Section 305 of the IPC.
Calcutta High Court restored the Complaint Case and set aside the acquittal of accused in cheque bounce case under Section 256 of the CrPC.
Calcutta High Court allowed the present revision petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners on ground of abuse of the legal process.
Calcutta High Court cited various cases where the Supreme Court has expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC in matrimonial disputes.
Calcutta High Court held that there does not appear to be any discrepancies in the statements and evidence provided, therefore the same can be considered reliable and trustworthy, beyond all reasonable doubt.
While quashing the criminal proceeding filed against petitioners, the Calcutta High Court held that the same is lacking with substantial evidence and is institutes with malicious intent.
Considering the nature of the alleged offences and the available evidence, the Calcutta High Court found a prima facie case against the petitioner to proceed to trial.
The Calcutta High Court criticized the trial court for solely relying on party’s submissions and not calling for injury report.