Substantial injury
caused to public exchequer; quashing refused.
FIR quashed as the
allegations did not disclose inducement or intent to deceive.
Dispute predominantly
civil in nature, criminal color given to civil dispute amounts to abuse of
process of law.
No misappropriation or
proceeds of crime; hence, prosecution under IPC and PMLA is a misuse of process.
Charges quashed due to
non-application of judicial mind while framing charges under Sections 354 and
354C IPC.
Petitioners have failed to comply with previous judicial directives, including two undertakings regarding Respondent No.1s status, indicating willful defiance of Court orders.
Once foundational facts
are proved, the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption under
Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
Petitioners did not intentionally aid or conspire to cause suicide and continuing prosecution would constitute an abuse of legal process hence, impugned FIR registered of alleged offences set aside.
The presumption under
Section 29 of the POCSO Act is triggered only when the prosecution establishes
foundational facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
Statutory powers of attachment must be exercised with due process and cannot overwrite constitutional protection to property without fair opportunity of being heard.
Prosecution failed to
establish foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt; conviction set aside.
Considering circumstantial evidence, combined with severity of Applicants alleged role, does not warrant bail, as conditions of Section 37 of Act are not met.
Prosecution failed to
follow proper seizure and search procedures; conviction set aside.
Unexplained delay between Detaining Authoritys receipt of representation and subsequent comments sent to State Government violates constitutional mandate outlined in Article 22 (5) of Constitution, thereby invalidating detention order.
Given significant sums involved and number of victims, custodial interrogation is deemed essential and granting anticipatory bail could impede investigation.
As Petitioner did not raise objections about illegal arrest during initial remand, leading to conclusion that if procedural infringement existed, it could be addressed through compensation or accountability measures without disrupting ongoing trial.
If evidence presented does not convincingly prove Appellants guilt, impugned Judgment convicting and sentencing Appellant set-aside and Appellant is acquitted from all charges.
If interim moratorium under Section 96[1][a] of Code was initiated, but there is no record of subsequent events then, Respondents are not entitled to protection from this moratorium issued by NCLT Kolkata.
Court declines to invalidate arrest or remand orders, emphasizing importance of adhering to constitutional mandates while acknowledging the need for judicial restraint regarding past proceedings.
Application under Section 482 of CrPC is maintainable to quash proceedings which are ex facie bad for want of sanction, frivolous or in abuse of process of Court.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer