In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India overturned a cheque dishonor conviction based on a civil court ruling. This article explains the limited situations where civil judgments, like those involving Section 138 NI Act disputes, can influence criminal cases. Read to understand the case background, Supreme Court’s reasoning on the conflict of decisions, and the impact of the ruling. Learn about the interplay between civil and criminal proceedings in India. Supreme Court Overturns Cheque Dishonour Conviction Based on Civil Court Ruling New Delhi – April 2 In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The ruling highlights the limited circumstances under which civil court judgments can influence criminal proceedings. Background of the Case: Cheque bounce overturned The case involved a dispute over a cheque issued by the appellant (accused) to the complainant (respondent). The appellant filed a civil suit to prevent the encashment of the cheque, claiming it was only meant as security. Meanwhile, the complainant initiated criminal proceedings under Section 138 for cheque dishonour. The appellant was found guilty by the lower courts and sentenced to one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs. Supreme Court’s Reasoning: The Supreme Court clarified that while civil and criminal proceedings are independent, a civil court’s decision can impact the criminal case in specific instances like sentencing or damages. In this case, the civil court had declared the cheque as security, making the […]
News
The Madras High Court on Wednesday ushered in a groundbreaking era for legal proceedings involving incarcerated individuals. In a decision that marks a significant shift in how courts handle appeals from convicts, the court granted permission to R. Subramanian, a convict, to argue his own case through video conferencing. Madras High Court Makes Landmark Decision: Convict to Argue Case Through Video Conference A Desire for Self-Representation In November 2023, Subramanian, former promoter of several financial institutions, got convicted. He received a 20-year imprisonment term for an economic offence. Despite this, he filed a writ petition. He wanted to actively engage in his legal proceedings. Consequently, this petition, heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, presented a compelling argument for allowing Subramanian to argue his appeals without the need for physical presence in court (Convict to Argue Case). The petition stemmed from Subramanian’s wish to represent himself in some of his pending cases before the High Court. This request highlighted a growing trend of convicts seeking a more active role in their legal battles. A Balanced Approach While acknowledging the merits of Subramanian’s petition, the court recognized the need for a nuanced approach. Chief Justice Gangapurwala emphasized the importance of considering the specifics of each case. A blanket order granting Subramanian permission to argue all his cases without a lawyer wouldn’t be prudent, he explained. To ensure a balanced and well-informed decision, the court directed Subramanian’s counsel to submit a comprehensive list of […]
The Supreme Court of India has issued a landmark judgment clarifying the evolving nature of consent in sexual relationships. The Court, in a recent order, emphasized that initial consent in a relationship does not automatically translate to perpetual consent. This case involved an FIR filed against a man accused of rape. In fact, The accused argued that the relationship with the woman was consensual and the FIR was a retaliation for a blackmailing complaint he had filed against her. Understanding the Sexual Relationships Case: Rajkumar v. State of Karnataka Importance of Ongoing Consent: A Shift in Focus The Court, however, took a different stance. A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar stated that “the character of such Sexual Relationships at it was when started will not continue to prevail” if one partner withdraws consent. This highlights a crucial shift in focus – consent is not a one-time event; it’s an ongoing process requiring continual affirmation from both partners. Key Takeaways for a Clearer Understanding Here are the key takeaways from the Court’s decision: The Court acknowledged a previous ruling (Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2022 INSC 827). In fact, This ruling established that a consensual Relationships cannot be considered rape. However, they emphasized the importance of ongoing consent in this case. Impact and Significance of the Ruling The Court upholds individuals’ right to withdraw consent, protecting them from non-consensual sexual activity. Moreover, The landmark judgment is expected to impact rape cases significantly in India. […]
Confused about adding accused during trial in India? The Supreme Court clarifies the standard for using Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing stronger evidence beyond mere allegations. Know your legal rights and stay informed! Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Adding Accused Under Section 319 of CrPC The Supreme Court of India has recently issued a judgment clarifying the standard for adding accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section empowers courts to proceed against individuals not named in the chargesheet if they appear to be guilty of an offense. Key Points of the Judgment: Case Background: An FIR was filed against an individual for house trespass and assault. The complaint mentioned the presence of two other individuals during the incident but did not specifically accuse them. The complainant later filed a Section 319 Crpc application arguing that the investigating authorities omitted their names. Lower Court Decisions: Supreme Court’s Reasoning: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court‘s decision as it relied solely on a “prima facie” satisfaction based on vague allegations. The Court stressed that the standard is higher and requires stronger evidence, exceeding a “prima facie” case but not reaching the level of conviction certainty. Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and upheld the trial court’s decision. Significance: This judgment clarifies the legal threshold for invoking Section 319 Crpc to prevent its misuse. Finally, It emphasizes the need for substantial evidence beyond mere speculation to add additional accused persons […]
In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the authority of criminal courts to summon witnesses at any stage of proceedings until the court concludes the case. The decision sheds light on Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which empowers courts to call witnesses and examine individuals present during inquiries, trials, or other legal proceedings. Learn how the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s recent ruling affirms judicial discretion under Section 311 of the CrPC regarding witnesses in criminal proceedings. Understand the factors considered and the court’s decision. Punjab and Haryana High Court Affirms Judicial Discretion Regarding Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings Judicial Discretion under Section 311 of CrPC Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized that under Section 311, courts have the discretion to summon the same witness for multiple examinations, exercising caution in such decisions. Furthermore, The court outlined several factors guiding the trial court’s powers under Section 311, emphasizing the importance of evidence essential for a just decision. The judgment clarified that courts can invoke Section 311 even after cross-examination has been barred, allowing further examination or cross-examination at the prosecution’s or accused’s request. Moreover, the court stressed that summoning witnesses remains within the judicial discretion of criminal courts until the case’s conclusion. Factors Considered by the Court Notably, the court highlighted that the exercise of power under Section 311 should be accompanied by clear and logical reasons, aligning with fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. The ruling came during a petition hearing under Section 482 of […]
