Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court  in HDFC Securities Ltd. & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. has recently held that the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not provide for vicarious liability for any offence alleged to be committed by a company. A division bench of Justice PC Ghose and Justice Amitava Roy also held that if and when a statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically therefore, e.g. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Bench has relied on a previous judgment of Supreme Court in S.K. Alagh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, in which it is held that the Indian Penal Code, save and except some provisions specifically providing therefore, does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a party who is not charged directly for commission of an offence. The court has also relied on another judgment in Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat, wherein it is held as follows: “The Indian Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vica...

The single bench of Justice Sadhna Jadhav of the Bombay High Court in Shri Lonkaran Chothmalji Parmar vs The State of Maharashtra  has refused to grant bail to an accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including wrongful confinement, rape. He has also been booked under three sections of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act(POCSO). The accused had filed a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC. An FIR has been lodged by the 20 year old girl who claims to have been 15 at the time of the crime. The FIR was lodged at Panchvati Police Station, Nashik. She says that the applicant had participated in facilitating her marriage with one Nitin Jain. She later learnt from Jain that he had in fact “purchased her 5 lakhs” and that he was from Rajasthan not Ahmedabad contrary to what she was told. She was sexually abused. He refused to “give her the status of a wife.” She later gave birth to two children. Nitin however had abandoned her and was residing in a d...

The Supreme Court in Amarsang Nathaji vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, has said the mere fact that a person made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding was not by itself always sufficient to justify prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. The apex court said it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. It also explained the procedure contemplated under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These observations were made by a Bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman in an appeal against an order by Gujarat High Court wherein it had directed the Registrar (Judicial) to make complaint against a litigant in view of the findings recorded by the court for the offence under Sections 199 and 200 of the IPC. The high court had observed that the conduct of the lit...

In Shaik Riayazun Bee Vs. State of A.P., the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the phrase relative of the husband employed in Section 498A IPC should be understood as relatives of the husbands side with whom he obtained relationship by way of blood, marriage or adoption. That being so A6 during the relevant period being the sister-in-law of complainant, she cannot be said to be the relative of the husband.

The Calcutta High Court in Jishu Sengupta & Others Vs State of West Bengal & Anr, has held that “sexually coloured remarks” will come within the ambit of “sexual harassment” enumerated in section 354A of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Ranjit Kumar Bag was considering revision petitions filed by Rudranil Ghosh, Parambrata Chattopadhyay, Srijit Mukherjee and Jishu Sengupta against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, issuing summons to them. The allegation in the complaint is that on December 21, 2015, at 9 pm, during a television talk show titled Shonge Srijit, petitioner Srijit talked to petitioners Parambrata and Rudranil by casting aspersion on the character and reputation of the complainant and subjecting her to “sexual harassment”. By referring to one mannequin as the complainant, Srijit ascertained from Parambrata and Rudranil that they were in love with her, for which she would be immortalised in history. Both Rudranil and Parambrata used metaphors and euphemi...

The Delhi High Court in Mange Ram Jain vs Jatinder Kumar Jain has ruled that temporary disconnection of water supply does not constitute ‘mischief’. The court stated that the act does not confirm to the essential provisions defining the offence of ‘mischief’ under Section 425 IPC. The single judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta quashed summons issued to the respondents and stated that, ‘one of the essential ingredients of the offence of “mischief” is ‘wrongful loss or damage to any person by causing destruction of any property or making a change which diminishes its value.’ The dispute between the parties was with regard to the dues towards the complainant which was an admitted fact and even on an erroneous calculation thereof temporary disconnection of the supply would not cause either destruction of the property or diminishing its value’. The conflict goes back to the dispute over payment of dues towards home loan in the Atma Vallabh Cooperative Group Housing Society between the involv...

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said some people appeared to have misunderstood its judgment upholding the criminal defamation provision in the IPC and thought that their right to free speech had been curtailed. During the hearing on Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi's petition seeking quashing of a criminal defamation case against him, a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said, "Any criticism of someone does not make the speech a ground for launching criminal defamation proceedings under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code." The judge appeared anguished by the misinformed criticism of the May 13 order. Justice Misra, who had authored the judgment, said, "What we said in our judgment, people must read and understand. It does not cripple or curtail right to free speech. What is curbed is defamatory speech. Every day a writer, politician, critic or an antagonist would make some statement or the other criticising someone or the government. That does...

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 301 and 300 Firstly [S. 302 or S. 304 Pt. I] — Transfer of malice: Conviction and sentence passed by trial court under S. 302 IPC, restored as High Court in converting conviction from S. 302 to S. 304 Pt. I has failed to take into consideration doctrine of transfer of malice as provided in S. 301 IPC. Intention on the part of respondent-accused in causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death was not a disputed fact. It cannot be believed that respondent did not know about likelihood of causing death, though, he may not know as to whom he is causing bodily harm, but his act clearly attracts ingredients of S. 300 IPC. [State of Rajasthan v. Ram Kailash, (2016) 4 SCC 590]

Bombay High Court has recently acquitted an Accused who challenged his conviction under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code [Subhash Purandas Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra]. Originally he was charged with the Offences under Sections 306 IPC and 498A. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- for S.498A. He was acquitted of offence under Section 306 of IPC . The Prosecution Case was that the Accused’s wife committed suicide because of his Cruelty with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/-. The trial Court considered the evidence which was brought and recorded findings that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim had committed suicide or that the accused had abetted the committing of suicide by the victim. It also held that it was not proved that the Victim was subjected to cruelty of such a nature which would drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself. The trial Court, however, held...

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that criminal proceedings against an accused under Section 304 cannot be quashed by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code on the basis of settlement/compromise arrived at between the accused and the legal heirs/representatives of the person who has lost his life in the accident. The division bench comprising of Justices Mahesh Grover and Lisa Gill also observed that the offence under Section 304-A IPC is not private in nature and answered the reference to it in negative. SECTION 304A IPC NOT PRIVATE IN NATURE Dismissing the argument that Section 304A IPC is private in nature, the bench said “It would indeed be paradoxical and incorrect to hold that the offence Under Section 304-A is private in nature. Its serious impact on society is not subject to understatement. When a person or persons lose their life/lives due to the rash and negligent act of the accused, the question of mens rea or intention in such a situa...

Delhi High Court while reversing the acquittal of an Accused for an Offence U/S 354 of Indian Penal Code has held that there is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. “That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise”.  Justice Sunita Gupta was hearing an appeal filed by the State against acquittal of Accused Pratap Singh @Krishna by  Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), South-East District, Saket Courts. Facts The complainant “X‟ had gone to gym where accused was an instructor. After 10.30 am, when all the girls from the gym had left, the respondent /accused came to her and ...