Criminal Law Archives - The Law Literates

9Dec, 2025

Section 86 Order VII Rule 11 CPC Limitation – Suit against foreign state – Sovereign immunity and limitation grounds raised

Section 86 Order VII Rule 11 CPC Limitation – Suit against foreign state – Sovereign immunity and limitation grounds raised – Held, suit not barred by limitation as recurring cause of action applies Doctrine of laches/limitation not applicable to periodic claims – Sovereign immunity plea not upheld at this stage Suit reinstated for trial on merits.[Paras 7, 24 to 25]

Relevant Paras:

7. Due to persistent inaction by the Respondents, the Appellants resorted to legal remedies. After protracted correspondence and a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, the Appellants obtained the consent mandated under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the Government of India by January 2013, enabling them to
institute civil proceedings against the foreign state For More please find the Judgment.

24. Lastly, learned counsel for the Respondents has also argued that the plaint was time barred and thus limitation is also a valid ground for rejection of plaint, although the learned Single judge, even while allowing his application, has rejected this ground. This Court concurs with the finding of the learned Single Judge that, prima facie, the present suit is not barred by limitation as the same is based on a recurring cause of action and that even if a part of the relief, i.e.,
payment of wages, sought in the plaint is barred by limitation, the Court can still exercise its discretion to mould the relief and grant recovery to the extent that is within limitation.

25. The Respondents counsel‟s reliance on Nikhila Dibyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.4 is misplaced, since it does not apply to a set of facts that give rise to a recurring cause of action and is only relevant to a „one time action‟. As has already been held in a catena of the Supreme Court judgments like MR Gupta v. Union of India5
, the doctrine of laches/limitation is not applicable where separate or distinct cause of action occurs periodically. Thus, the Respondents cannot be allowed to press this contention before this court.

Judgment Delhi High Court The Law Literates

27Dec, 2024

Section 6 Rape Victim girl of five years old – Medical does not support the case of prosecution – Judgment set aside/ Appeal Allowed

Pravin Ruprao Harde vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA CRLA 67/21 25/07/24 [ BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]

Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(j) IPC POCSO ACT Section 6 Rape Victim girl of five years old – Medical does not support the case of prosecution – It is the defence of the accused that, on account of the household property, there is a dispute between him and the parents of the victim – It is his defence that, on account of that, he was falsely implicated in this crime – It is true that the suggestions put forth in the cross-examination of the witnesses consistent with his defence of enmity have been denied by the witnesses – However, the fact remains that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not inspire confidence – There are material omissions and inconsistencies in their evidence on the vital aspect of the case of prosecution – Their statements recorded by the _ learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrP.C are also inconsistent as to the occurrence of the incident and the actual act committed by the accused – In the decision-making process, the Court should not get carried away by sympathy – Court has to ensure that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge – Evidence is not sufficient to prove the charge – Accused, therefore, is entitled to get the benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence – Appeal allowed.

Relevant Paras

16] It is the defence of the accused that, on account of the household property, there is a dispute between him and the parents of the victim. It is his defence that, on account of that, he was falsely implicated in this crime. It is true that the suggestions put forth in the cross-examination of the witnesses consistent with his defence of enmity have been denied by the witnesses. However, the fact remains that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not
inspire confidence. There are material omissions and
inconsistencies in their evidence on the vital aspect of the case of prosecution. Their statements recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.PC are also inconsistent as to the occurrence of the incident and the actual act committed by the accused. In my view, the prosecution, in this case, has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistent evidence of the witnesses on material aspects sufficient to doubt the credibility and trustworthiness of the witnesses. In such a crime, the Court has sympathy with the child.
However, in the decision-making process, the Court should not get carried away by sympathy. The Court has to ensure that the evidence on record is sufficient to prove the charge.

17] In this case, on minute perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, I am satisfied that it leaves a scope to doubt their credibility and trustworthiness. The accused has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years on the basis of such evidence. In my view, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has not taken proper care. The oral evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence. In the ordinary circumstances, if the accused had committed the act as alleged by the witnesses, then the Medical Officer ought to have noticed some injuries or at least swelling to the genital of the victim. In my view,
therefore, the evidence is not sufficient to prove the charge. The accused, in the teeth of such doubtful evidence, cannot be held guilty of the charge. As such, I conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused, therefore, is
entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order.

Click here to read the judgment ⬇️

Pravin Ruprao Harde VS State of Maharashtra Judgment Nagpur bench The Law Literates

8Nov, 2024

Dowry death – Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction convicting the appellants finding them guilty under Sections 304B/34 and 498A/34 IPC- The Law Literates

PARAMJIT vs STATE OF DELHI CRLA 566/01 12/05/17 [ DELHI HIGH COURT]

Dowry death – Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction convicting the appellants finding them guilty under Sections 304B/34 and 498A/34 IPC and order on sentence vide which the appellants were sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B/34 IPC – The scope of convicting an accused under Section 302 IPC i.e. for commission of murder and Section 304B IPC i.e. dowry death are altogether different. The ingredients of both these Sections are also separate.

In convicting an accused under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution is bound to prove its case either by way of direct evidence or with the connecting chain of circumstances, whereas convicting an accused for commission of dowry death specific circumstances are to be established. In the present case, since co-convict has already been convicted under Section 302 IPC by treating the death of deceased as murder, no case is made out against the appellants to convict them under commission of dowry death of the deceased.

To read the judgment Click here

PARAMJIT KAUR & Mangat Singh V:s State The Law Literates Judgment

27Jun, 2024

The West Bengal Bar Council has announced that it will observe July 1 as a “Black Day” to protest against three newly introduced criminal laws.

The West Bengal Bar Council has announced that it will observe July 1 as a “Black Day” to protest against three newly introduced criminal laws.

The West Bengal Bar Council has declared July 1 as a “Black Day” in protest against three newly enacted criminal laws. This decision reflects the council’s strong opposition and concerns regarding the implications of these laws on the legal system and the rights of individuals. Members of the legal community will participate in various forms of protest to express their discontent and call for reconsideration of the controversial legislation.

According to the resolution passed at the Council meeting on June 25, 2024, the Members of the Council expressed their unanimous views on three acts:

1) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,

2) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanita, 2023, and

3) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

They consider these acts to be anti-people, undemocratic, and draconian, which will cause significant hardship to the common people. The Bar Council of West Bengal, finding no other alternative, has decided to vehemently protest against these three anti-people acts, according to an excerpt from the resolution.

25Jun, 2024

Bail Granted – Penetrative sexual assault on Minor Bail The main legal issue is whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and the evidence presented

Vishal kumar vs STATE OF HP CRMPM 815/24 21/06/24 [ The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Nege]

[ HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT ]

Sections 376, 201 and 34 POCSO ACT Section 4 – Penetrative sexual assault on Minor Bail The main legal issue is whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and the evidence presented —The petitioner argues for bail, highlighting the lack of criminal antecedents and asserting that there is no flight risk or potential for interference with the investigation —The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the need to ensure the integrity of the investigation —The court granted bail to the petitioner —The court did not find prima facie evidence of sexual intercourse attributable to the petitioner, as medical and DNA evidence did not corroborate the charges — The court considered the nature and gravity of the charges, the role of the petitioner, and the lack of corroborative expert evidence — The court concluded that the petitioner could be released on bail without risk to the investigation or trial, subject to specific conditions to ensure compliance and cooperation.

Relevant Paras:

13. In view of the aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed and the bail petitioner is enlarged on bail in case FIR No. 5/2024 dated 05.01.2024, under Sections 376, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station, District Kangra, subject to his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Special Court, POSCO, Kangra at Dharamshala, having jurisdiction over the concerned Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-

(i)Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;
(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever; (iii) Petitioner shall not make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the Investigating Officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Courts or any Police Officer.
(iv) Petitioner shall inform the Station House Officer of the concerned police station about his place of residence during bail and trial. Any change in the same shall also be communicated within two weeks thereafter. Petitioner shall furnish details of his Aadhar card, telephone number, email, PAN Card, Bank Account Number if any.
In case of violation of any of the terms & conditions of the bail, respondent/State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the matter. Learned trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by above observations.

To read the judgment click here:

Vishal Kumar V:s State of Himachal Pradesh Judgment The Law Literates

15Jun, 2024

Sections 420, 306, 34 and 120B IPC Framing of charges Abetment to Suicide Money Dispute Non Payment of Debt – Set Aside

Sharanjit vs State of Punjab CRR 3672/18 07/10/23 [HON’BLE JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH ]

[ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ]

Sections 420, 306, 34 and 120B IPC Framing of charges Abetment to Suicide Money Dispute Non Payment of Debt – No evidence on the file that the deceased had either initiated proceedings against the accused for cheating/theft of the cheques during his life-time or had given intimation of the theft of the cheques to his Bank – Merely because the petitioner had availed his legal remedy under section 138 of the NI Act in which the deceased came to be convicted could not amount to abetment or harassment – Charges framed qua the petitioner set aside. [Paras 13, 19 and 20]

To read the judgment click here

Sharanjit Singh V:s State of Punjab judgment P&H High court The Law Literates

1Jun, 2024

Section 439 CRPC NDPS ACT Section 37 Regular Bail – Alleged that petitioner, along with a co-accused, was involved in the transportation and distribution of intoxicant tablets’ – Involvement in other NDPS cases

PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ]

BALJIT vs STATE OF PUNJAB CRMM 63157/23 20/12/23 [ HARPREET JJ ] [

Section 439 CRPC NDPS ACT Section 37 Regular Bail – Alleged that petitioner, along with a co-accused, was involved in the transportation and distribution of intoxicant tablets’ – Involvement in other NDPS cases – Petitioner has been in custody for more than 03 years and 04 months and 11 prosecution witnesses out of 19 are yet to be examined and the trial has not even reached the halfway mark – Without commenting on merits, bail granted. [Paras 5, 6, 10 and 11]

Relevant Paras

5. The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to ensure speedy trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that right to speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything starting with the accusation against the accused and expiring with the final verdict of the last court.
6 . It has further been held in law that if a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The procedure so prescribed must ensure speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. Some amount of denial of personal liberty cannot be avoided, but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes excessively long, the fairness guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India would come into play and it would prevail over the embargo created by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

10. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 03years and 04 months and 11 prosecution witnesses out of 19 are yet to be examined and the trial has not even reached the halfway mark.
11. The present petition seeking regular bail to the petitioner is allowed solely on the ground of long custody already undergone by him and without commenting on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the case pending before the trial Court. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.

To read the Judgment click here

BALJIT SINGH @ KALA V:S STATE OF PUNJAB CRM-M_63157_2023_20_12_2023_FINAL_ORDER

8Apr, 2024

Set-Aside / Section 482 CRPC Section 408 IPC Dismissal of application for getting statement recorded by way of video conferencing through server room at the Civil Court and closing of evidence of prosecution by court order – Challenged

Sukhmanjit Singh Dhindsa vs State of Punjab CRMM 59290/23 28/11/23 [ HARPREET JJ ] [ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ]

Section 482 CRPC Section 408 IPC Dismissal of application for getting statement recorded by way of video conferencing through server room at the Civil Court and closing of evidence of prosecution by court order – Challenged – Held, existing provisions of Criminal Procedure Code permit recording of evidence by way of video conferencing and such procedure duly recognized by High Court by inserting Model Video Conferencing Rules as circulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court – Recourse to record evidence through video conferencing is all more necessary when attendance of witness cannot be procured physically and any delay would affect progress of trial, which would cause great hardship and inconvenience to witness by travelling long distance to depose – Evidence of petitioner being complainant is necessary for pursuits of justice and mechanism of fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution of India is not only available to accused but it exists for complainant victim as well and depriving opportunity to petitioner to depose through video conferencing, who is stuck in Canada due to diplomatic standoff between India and Canada, would be violative of his right to free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Therefore, dismissal of application for getting statement recorded by way of video conferencing set aside.

8. As such, keeping in view the proposition that the existing provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code permit recording of evidence by way of video conferencing and such procedure has been duly recognized by this Court by inserting Model Video Conferencing Rules as circulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The recourse to record evidence through video conferencing is all the more necessary when attendance of a witness cannot be procured physically and any delay would affect the progress of the trial, which would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the witness by travelling a long distance to depose. The evidence of the petitioner being complainant is necessary for the pursuits of justice and the mechanism of fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not only available to the accused but it exists for the complainant victim as well and depriving an opportunity to the petitioner to depose through video conferencing, who is stuck in Canada due to a diplomatic standoff between India and Canada, would be violative of his right to free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

To read the judgment click here

Sukhmanjit Singh Dhindsa State of Punjab and others The Law Literates Judgment 🔁

3Apr, 2024

Sectiona 499 IPC Defamation – Whether ‘retweeting’ a defamatory content amounts to ‘publication’ under Section 499 of IPC, and whether the petitioner, who is not the original author of the content, can be summoned for defamation -Dismissed

DELHI HIGH COURT

ARVIND KEJRIWAL 🆚 STATE AND ANR CRLMC 6343/19 Justice Swarna Kant Sharma

Sectiona 499 IPC Defamation – Whether ‘retweeting’ a defamatory content amounts to ‘publication’ under Section 499 of IPC, and whether the petitioner, who is not the original author of the content, can be summoned for defamation – The petitioner, who is the Chief Minister of Delhi, had retweeted a video posted by another person on YouTube, which allegedly contained defamatory statements against the respondent, who is the founder of a social media page supporting the Prime Minister of India – The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for defamation under Section 499/500 of IPC – The petitioner challenged the summoning order on the grounds that the retweet did not constitute defamation, as it did not have any intention or knowledge to harm the respondent’s reputation, and that the petitioner was not the original author or publisher of the content – The petitioner also argued that the respondent had earlier withdrawn a Similar complaint against him, which amounted to acquittal under Section 257 of Cr.P.C – The respondent contended that the retweet was defamatory, as it lowered his reputation in the eyes of the public, and that the petitioner had a large following on Twitter, which amplified the impact of the retweet – The respondent also argued that the earlier withdrawal of the complaint was due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court, and that it did not bar the subsequent prosecution of the petitioner – The reach and influence of the person retweeting the defamatory content, and the potential harm caused to the reputation of the aggrieved person, and holds that the petitioner, being a Chief Minister with a large social media following, cannot escape liability by merely contending that he had no malicious intent or knowledge of the defamatory content – It is difficult to erase the reputational injury from public memory, as the tweets may be deleted but perceptions are difficult to be deleted from the minds of the community – This Court, thus, for the purpose of adjudicating the present case, holds that retweeting a content, which is allegedly defamatory, on the Twitter account and projecting it to be as if his own views, will prima facie attract the liability under Section 499 of IPC, for the purpose of issuance of summons – Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as learned Sessions Court – Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed – It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove qua the present complaint case are solely for the purpose of deciding the instant petition challenging the summoning orders, and the same shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case, which will be adjudicated upon during the course of trial.

To read the judgment click here

ARVIND KEJRIWAL VERSUS STATE & ANR THE LAW LITERATES JUDGMENT

30Mar, 2024

Prevention of Money Laundering Act,- Sections 44 read with Section 45 – Bail application – Bail Application filed by Applicant, an MLA from Okhla constituency in Delhi, against the Enforcement Directorate (ED)- Appeal Dismissed

AMANATULLAH KHAN VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT BA 795/24 11/03/24 [ SWARANA KANTA SHARMA JUSTICE ] [ DELHI HIGH COURT ]

Prevention of Money Laundering Act,- Sections 44 read with Section 45 – Bail application – Bail Application filed by Applicant, an MLA from Okhla constituency in Delhi, against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) – The ED alleges that Applicant laundered money obtained through illegal gratification while he was the Chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board (DWB) — Applicant denies the allegations – The ED alleges that Applicant accumulated proceeds of crime by giving favors to bidders for leasing out Waqf properties, giving out jobs illegally, and misappropriating DWB funds – Applicant allegedly laundered this money by using it to purchase properties in the names of others –

Applicant argues that the predicate offences for which he is accused of money laundering are the same ones for which he has already been granted bail – He also argues that the ED has not shown that any crime actually occurred – The material brought before this Court at this stage is sufficient to attract bar under Section 45 of PMLA, and it prima facie shows the offence of money laundering being committed by the present accused/applicant – Further, the applicant despite being summoned on six occasions till date, has not joined investigation and cooperated with the investigating agency – Though a list of documents was also supplied by the agency to the applicant, as an Annexure to the summons, the applicant has failed to submit those documents with the investigating agency – Thus, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the present applicant — Appeal Dismissed

Relevant paras

EROSION OF TRUST: THE FALLOUT OF OBSTRUCTING
JUSTICE
81. In this Court’s opinion, repeated disobedience of summons of the investigating agency is equivalent to Obstruction of investigation – Obstruction of investigation is equivalent to obstruction of administration of justice – Obstruction of administration of justice is equivalent to Eroding trust and confidence in the criminal justice system – and eroding trust and confidence in the criminal justice system will lead to Anarchy and diminished respect for the rule of law.
82. Obstructing justice by not joining investigation is a hindrance in pursuit of justice. It is the right of an investigating agency and the State to pursue vigorously an investigation to the best of their ability,
and further to conduct investigation fairly, independently, and objectively without any ill-will or enmity towards either the accused or the victim. Obstructing administration of justice, thus, thwarts
the lawful authority of an investigating agency and hampers the legitimate investigative process.
83. The law is enacted to serve public interest by promoting accountability of a citizen to the law and in case of accountability of a public servant to the community at large and to the State. The negatively impacting facts on the community at large by holding
such conduct to be legitimate despite disobedience of repeated summons by an investigating agency will send a message to public that non-compliance of repeated summons i.e. almost six
summons without a valid excuse would not invite ire of law. It will also compromise future investigations by the same agencies as the public opinion and message will be formed that, if any person skips
multiple summons of any investigating agency including ED, neither the investigating agency nor the Court of law are able to bring such persons to obey the mandate of law and such a person can be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Conversely, a message may be taken
by the public that such avoidance of multiple summons and non- joining of investigation by any investigating agency is permissible in law.
84. When a person does not join investigation upon receipt of summons of investigating agency which have not been declared illegal or struck down by a Court of law, it means that he has acted in a way so as to prevent the Law Enforcement Agency from collecting information about a suspected offence. Such an attempt and conduct of a person results in delaying the administration of justice, since it
delays investigation of a suspected offence. Refusing to assist, aid, provide relevant information asked for by the Law Enforcement Agency when lawfully asked, failing to appear before the investigating agency, despite being bound in law, such non- appearance thus, amounts to obstructing the Law Enforcement
Agency and the concerned officers from performing their duties to investigate the case which is equivalent to obstructing administration of justice and investigation.
85. In the background of a decision that a Court of lawreaches, lies the public interest analysis, as a Court of law is aware regarding possible impact of its decision and the alleged conduct of the accused in relation to an alleged offence and his reluctance to join investigation on the community at large.

To read the judgment click here

AMANATULLAH KHAN versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT The Law Literates