- The document discusses an application to strike defendant #1, who was the Chief Minister of Gujarat at the time of the alleged incidents, from three consolidated civil suits related to deaths during religious violence in Gujarat in 2002.
- The defense argues defendant #1 is not a necessary party as the suits are about tortious acts of other officials, while the plaintiffs argue defendant #1's role as leader makes him relevant.
- In its ruling, the court examines allegations in the plaints against defendant #1's actions and policies as Chief Minister but notes the plaints contain mostly general assertions rather than specific allegations against defendant #1 personally.
1) The document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020.
2) The petitioner, Mohd Ibrahim, seeks bail in an FIR related to the violence and is accused of various offenses including murder.
3) The prosecution argues that CCTV footage shows the petitioner at the scene of crime near the time of incident carrying a sword, and his mobile location also places him there, while the defense argues the footage and locations are contradictory and he had no role in the violence.
1) Amit Goswami was charged under sections 147/148/149/457/435/436/454/380 IPC for his involvement in a riot case registered under FIR No. 121/2020 at PS Bhajanpura on February 25, 2020.
2) Goswami applied for bail arguing parity as two co-accused granted bail earlier for same role. Prosecution opposed bail citing identification by two police witnesses.
3) The court granted bail to Goswami noting he was not named in FIR, police witnesses delayed reporting and their credibility was doubtful, and trial would take long time. Bail granted on furnishing a bond and following certain conditions.
The document summarizes the key details from a court case involving multiple complaints related to riots in North-East Delhi. It notes that two of the complaints could not have been clubbed together in this case based on the details provided. For the third complaint by Nisar Ahmed, it provides context on his repeated attempts to file complaints with the police about the riots he witnessed on two separate dates, and the threats he faced which led him to approach the court. The court ultimately allowed his petition to have his complaint registered as a separate FIR and not treated as part of this case, based on the details he provided about the two separate dates of incidents.
1. The prosecution is appealing the conviction of the accused Sunil in the High Court of Delhi.
2. Sunil was convicted by the sessions court of murder under section 302 IPC and acid attack under section 326B read with section 34 IPC for throwing acid on the victim Reema, which led to her death.
3. The prosecution is arguing that Sunil must be convicted on both charges. For the murder charge, the prosecution argues that Sunil threw acid on Reema with the help of his friend Ramesh, causing grievous injuries that led to her death, satisfying the conditions for murder. For the acid attack charge, the prosecution argues that Sunil threw the acid with help from R
Allahabad hc pre arrest bail order correctedsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes a court case involving an application for anticipatory bail. Key details:
- The applicant, Vidhan Vyas, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of rape, assault and criminal intimidation filed by the informant Pooja.
- Pooja alleged Vyas sexually exploited her after gaining her trust, but Vyas claimed they had a consensual relationship and business disputes were behind the charges.
- The court noted the relationship appeared consensual initially and Pooja admitted Vyas married her in Nepal, making the rape charges unsound.
- The court also found no evidence to support charges of assault, intimidation or regarding the alleged business
This document is a high court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Asif Iqbal Tanha against an order rejecting his bail application in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Some key points:
1) Tanha, a student, was arrested for his alleged role in organizing and instigating the riots based on his involvement with the Jamia Coordination Committee.
2) The police allege Tanha was a key conspirator and mastermind behind the riots, and that he mobilized crowds and gave instructions to spread messages inciting violence.
3) Tanha has filed this appeal challenging the rejection of his second bail application. The court discusses the legislative competence to enact the Unlawful Activities
The document summarizes a court case involving Devangana Kalita appealing the rejection of her bail application. Some key points:
- Kalita was arrested in relation to 4 FIRs regarding protests against the CAA and NRC acts, and has received bail in 3 but remains in custody for the 4th (subject FIR).
- The allegations against her are that as part of protest groups, she instigated violence in Muslim areas of Delhi in February 2020. However, she denies being present at the sites of violence and claims her call/location records will exonerate her.
- Her lawyers argue the charges against her are vague and she poses no flight risk or evidence tampering risk so should be granted bail
1) The document is a bail application order from the High Court of Delhi regarding the violence that took place in Delhi in February 2020.
2) The petitioner, Mohd Ibrahim, seeks bail in an FIR related to the violence and is accused of various offenses including murder.
3) The prosecution argues that CCTV footage shows the petitioner at the scene of crime near the time of incident carrying a sword, and his mobile location also places him there, while the defense argues the footage and locations are contradictory and he had no role in the violence.
1) Amit Goswami was charged under sections 147/148/149/457/435/436/454/380 IPC for his involvement in a riot case registered under FIR No. 121/2020 at PS Bhajanpura on February 25, 2020.
2) Goswami applied for bail arguing parity as two co-accused granted bail earlier for same role. Prosecution opposed bail citing identification by two police witnesses.
3) The court granted bail to Goswami noting he was not named in FIR, police witnesses delayed reporting and their credibility was doubtful, and trial would take long time. Bail granted on furnishing a bond and following certain conditions.
The document summarizes the key details from a court case involving multiple complaints related to riots in North-East Delhi. It notes that two of the complaints could not have been clubbed together in this case based on the details provided. For the third complaint by Nisar Ahmed, it provides context on his repeated attempts to file complaints with the police about the riots he witnessed on two separate dates, and the threats he faced which led him to approach the court. The court ultimately allowed his petition to have his complaint registered as a separate FIR and not treated as part of this case, based on the details he provided about the two separate dates of incidents.
1. The prosecution is appealing the conviction of the accused Sunil in the High Court of Delhi.
2. Sunil was convicted by the sessions court of murder under section 302 IPC and acid attack under section 326B read with section 34 IPC for throwing acid on the victim Reema, which led to her death.
3. The prosecution is arguing that Sunil must be convicted on both charges. For the murder charge, the prosecution argues that Sunil threw acid on Reema with the help of his friend Ramesh, causing grievous injuries that led to her death, satisfying the conditions for murder. For the acid attack charge, the prosecution argues that Sunil threw the acid with help from R
Allahabad hc pre arrest bail order correctedsabrangsabrang
The document summarizes a court case involving an application for anticipatory bail. Key details:
- The applicant, Vidhan Vyas, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving charges of rape, assault and criminal intimidation filed by the informant Pooja.
- Pooja alleged Vyas sexually exploited her after gaining her trust, but Vyas claimed they had a consensual relationship and business disputes were behind the charges.
- The court noted the relationship appeared consensual initially and Pooja admitted Vyas married her in Nepal, making the rape charges unsound.
- The court also found no evidence to support charges of assault, intimidation or regarding the alleged business
This document is a high court judgment regarding an appeal filed by Asif Iqbal Tanha against an order rejecting his bail application in a case related to the 2020 Delhi riots. Some key points:
1) Tanha, a student, was arrested for his alleged role in organizing and instigating the riots based on his involvement with the Jamia Coordination Committee.
2) The police allege Tanha was a key conspirator and mastermind behind the riots, and that he mobilized crowds and gave instructions to spread messages inciting violence.
3) Tanha has filed this appeal challenging the rejection of his second bail application. The court discusses the legislative competence to enact the Unlawful Activities
The document summarizes a court case involving Devangana Kalita appealing the rejection of her bail application. Some key points:
- Kalita was arrested in relation to 4 FIRs regarding protests against the CAA and NRC acts, and has received bail in 3 but remains in custody for the 4th (subject FIR).
- The allegations against her are that as part of protest groups, she instigated violence in Muslim areas of Delhi in February 2020. However, she denies being present at the sites of violence and claims her call/location records will exonerate her.
- Her lawyers argue the charges against her are vague and she poses no flight risk or evidence tampering risk so should be granted bail
The document is a court judgment summarizing the case against Natasha Narwal. Key details:
- Narwal is accused of instigating protests against the CAA/NRC that led to riots in Delhi in February 2020.
- She was part of activist groups including Pinjra Tod and attended meetings where more extreme protests like blocking roads were discussed.
- However, her defense argues she was merely protesting peacefully and not present during any riots or violence. She claims the police evidence is fabricated and she played no role in any conspiracy or riots.
- The court will determine if Narwal qualifies for bail based on the evidence and charges against her under the UAPA anti-terrorism law
This document is a court order summarizing a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order directing the police to register separate FIRs based on the complaints of the respondent Nishar Ahmed. The court order discusses the legal principles around clubbing of complaints and registration of separate FIRs. It notes that while similar complaints can be clubbed to protect the accused, if the incidents are different with different accused, separate FIRs should be registered to allow for separate investigations and trials. After reviewing the facts and complaints made by Nishar Ahmed regarding two separate incidents of rioting on different dates, the court finds that his later complaint was not properly clubbed with an earlier FIR and orders investigation of his complaints in separate FIRs.
moot file of sec 304 -b,201and 34 of indian penal codegagan deep
The document is an appeal filed on behalf of the prosecution in the Supreme Court of India regarding the case of Union of India vs. Ajay Gupta & Ors. It summarizes the key facts of the case, which involve the dowry death of a woman named Aarti shortly after her marriage. It outlines the judgments from the trial court and high court, and presents two issues for the Supreme Court's consideration: 1) whether Ajay Gupta and his wife can be held liable for dowry death and cruelty, and 2) whether two other individuals can be held liable for murder. It proceeds to provide arguments supporting the prosecution's position on both issues.
1) The document is a court order from a bail hearing for Dharmendra Singh Harman, who is accused in a case related to the January 2021 farmer protests in Delhi.
2) The prosecution argues that Harman played an active role as an instigator and member of the unlawful assembly, as seen in photos of him sitting atop his car with a flag during the protest.
3) While the defense argues Harman only broke barricades, the court finds the allegations serious as he was part of a mob that took the law into their own hands by diverting from the approved route and breaking barricades at multiple locations before entering the Red Fort area, where police were attacked.
4) Noting
This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Aarif @ Mota, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and murder. The prosecution argues that Aarif was part of an unlawful assembly that killed Zakir during communal riots on February 25, 2020. However, the defense argues that it is unlikely a Muslim boy would have joined a riotous mob consisting mainly of Hindus. The eyewitnesses did not clearly describe Aarif's role, and video footage does not show him. As the applicant's involvement in the unlawful assembly and murder is unclear, the court finds that he should be granted bail.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a husband under Section 304B of dowry death. The deceased woman, Kanta Devi, was married to the accused in 1990. After two months of marriage, the deceased's mother-in-law demanded a motorcycle from her father, which he could not provide. The husband and mother-in-law then started harassing the deceased for more dowry. Five days before an event, the husband took the deceased back to her parents' house but brought her back two days later. She was found dead in her matrimonial home eight days later. Both the trial court and high court convicted the mother-in-law and husband of dowry death under Section 304B. The
Mayra alias vaishnvi_vilas_shirshikarn_and_anr_v__state_of_up_and_otherssabrangsabrang
This document summarizes 17 writ petitions pertaining to interfaith marriages contracted by petitioners in Uttar Pradesh, India. In each case, one petitioner converted religions in order to marry their partner of a different faith. They now seek protection from the state, apprehending threats from family members opposed to the interfaith unions. The state respondent argues the petitioners require district approval for their conversions and marriages. However, the petitioner's counsel argues citizens have the right to choose their own faith and partner without state interference. The court will analyze the relevant laws around conversion, marriage, and personal liberties in order to make a determination.
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff S.M. Lakshmi Reddy seeking a declaration of their right and title over a property located in Survey No. 163 of Mandagiri village.
2. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the property from defendant No. 1 (a partner of Shobha Estates) in 1991, but defendants 2-4 claim to have purchased the same property through sale deeds executed in 2009 and 2010.
3. The plaintiff alleges these subsequent sale deeds are not valid and seeks an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the property.
This document summarizes a court case involving the petitioner Arun Sharma filing a writ petition against the state of Madhya Pradesh and others regarding violations of his rights. The petitioner alleges that police forcibly evicted him from his shop, detained and beat him, and published his photo identifying him as a criminal without cause. The court discusses the issues raised and arguments made by amicus curiae that publishing photos and details of an accused person violates their fundamental rights and privacy unless convicted. The court is considering whether executive instructions can override constitutional rights and whether compensation is due for rights violations of an innocent person.
This judgment involves two related matrimonial appeals. The High Court of Kerala upheld the family court's judgment granting a divorce to the wife on the grounds of cruelty by the husband. The court found that the husband treated the wife as a source of money, constantly harassing her and her family for funds. He mismanaged his real estate business and spent money lavishly. He also physically and sexually abused the wife, even during her pregnancy. The husband further levelled false allegations of adultery against the wife. Taking all the circumstances into account, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the divorce.
A 15-year old girl was brutally murdered by burning in Jharkhand. The post-mortem report found 100% burn injuries on her body. A writ petition was filed alleging the police were not properly investigating the case and the accused were threatening the petitioner. The court examined the case diary and found the investigation was proceeding in a very casual manner with long delays. The court criticized the lack of seriousness and urgency shown by the investigating authorities. The court then directed the DGP to immediately constitute a Special Investigating Team to take over the case and ensure its speedy completion without delay.
1) The petitioner Faizan Khan is accused of activating a SIM card using fraudulent documents in the name of "Jamia Coordination Committee" to facilitate terrorist acts related to the February 2020 Delhi riots.
2) Investigation revealed the SIM card was highly active in WhatsApp groups coordinating the protests and riots. The identity documents used to activate the SIM did not match the person who owned them.
3) The petitioner admitted to activating the SIM card at the request of accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, using fraudulent photos, to provide a SIM for the protests against the CAA amendment. Witnesses supported this account.
The Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings against a married couple where the wife had left her home state of Karnataka without her family's consent to marry the husband in Uttar Pradesh. The Court criticized the investigating officer for threatening the couple and insisting the wife return to Karnataka to close the missing person case, when he could have recorded her statement where she resided. The Court affirmed that adult individuals have the right to choose their own marriage partners without family consent. It encouraged the wife's family to accept the marriage and reestablish relations to reduce social tensions from inter-caste marriages. The police were directed to develop training on sensitively handling such cases.
1. The appellant, who belongs to a scheduled caste, filed a complaint alleging he experienced caste-based abuse and humiliation by influential individuals over two years, including being pushed off a horse.
2. He alleges the accused conspired in a WhatsApp group to conduct an acid attack and frame his trainer, but one member left after informing the trainer of the plot.
3. The appellant says the police refused to register his complaints and the courts granted long dates, dismissing his applications, leaving him in danger from the accused persons.
The document appears to be a petition filed in the High Court of Delhi seeking to quash a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under defamation charges. The petition provides context regarding tweets made by the petitioner criticizing the appointment of the respondent as spokesperson by the BJP party, given his criminal history of assaulting an advocate and involvement in a sexual harassment case. The petition argues the tweets were made in public interest and truth, and therefore cannot amount to defamation under law. It seeks to quash the defamation proceedings against the petitioner.
Minister hate speech SC_Judgement_03-Jan-2023.pdfsabrangsabrang
1. The Supreme Court of India heard questions regarding restrictions on free speech and the scope of fundamental rights under the Constitution.
2. The questions arose from cases involving irresponsible statements made by two state ministers - one regarding a gang rape case, and the other regarding derogatory comments against women.
3. The Attorney General of India in his preliminary submissions argued that: a) restrictions on fundamental rights like free speech can only be imposed via legislation and the existing reasonable restrictions under Article 19 are exhaustive, and b) fundamental rights can only be claimed against the state or its instrumentalities as per the Constitution, and not against private individuals.
This document is a court judgment pertaining to bail applications filed by 4 petitioners - Liyakat Ali, Arshad Qayyum @ Monu, Gulfam @ VIP, and Irshad Ahmad - who have been accused in an FIR related to the February 2020 North East Delhi riots. The court heard the petitions together since they relate to the same FIR. While denying bail, the court noted the allegations against the petitioners include actively participating in the riots, destroying property, robbery, and instigating crowds. Eye witnesses and police officials claim to have identified the petitioners. The petitioners' lawyers argued they have been falsely implicated and the witness statements are unreliable.
1. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of his right and title over a plot of land, claiming he purchased it in 1991 based on a registered sale deed (Ex.A1) executed by the defendant No.1 who was a partner in Shobha Estates.
2. However, the defendants claim right and title based on subsequent sale deeds - defendant Nos. 2 and 3 claim right based on a 2009 sale deed (Ex.A2) executed by defendant No.1, and defendant No. 4 claims right based on a 2010 purchase from defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
3. The court must determine which party has valid right and title to the property based on the evidence and documents provided
The document is a judgment from the Gauhati High Court regarding an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency against a lower court order granting bail to Akhil Gogoi. Some key details:
- NIA's charges against Gogoi include leading a violent protest that turned into an economic blockade and pelted stones at police, with one officer sustaining grievous injuries.
- The lower court had granted Gogoi bail after the charge sheet was submitted. NIA argued this was an error as evidence showed Gogoi's role in conspiring violence and targeting a community.
- The High Court heard arguments on whether Gogoi's actions met the definition of "terrorist act" under
orissa HC sc st act caste name calling.pdfsabrangsabrang
The High Court of Orissa partially allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Ajay Pattanaik and Another challenging their cognizance under the SC and ST Act. While the Court found that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners for other offenses, it held that the offenses under the SC and ST Act were not established as there was no intent to insult or humiliate the witness due to his caste. The Court set aside the cognizance order under the SC and ST Act and directed the lower court to reconsider the process against the petitioners for the other charges.
1) The case involves State v. Tahir Hussain and others regarding FIR No. 80/20 filed at PS Dayalpur.
2) The court examined the charges and found that only Section 436 IPC (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house) was triable by sessions court.
3) Upon reviewing the complaint and statement of the sole witness Jai Bhagwan, the court determined that his allegations of losing furniture worth Rs. 35,000 when his loaded vehicle was stopped and articles burnt did not show commission of an offense under Section 436 IPC.
4) Therefore, all accused were discharged for the offense under Section 436 IPC
This document appears to be a court transcript detailing a retrial of a criminal case involving 17 defendants. The defendants were initially acquitted of charges related to arson, murder, and rioting during communal violence in Vadodara, India in 2002. However, the acquittal was later overturned by the Supreme Court of India due to allegations that witnesses were threatened during the original trial. The retrial transcript provides background on the communal violence, the charges against the defendants, and the prosecution's case against them.
The document is a court judgment summarizing the case against Natasha Narwal. Key details:
- Narwal is accused of instigating protests against the CAA/NRC that led to riots in Delhi in February 2020.
- She was part of activist groups including Pinjra Tod and attended meetings where more extreme protests like blocking roads were discussed.
- However, her defense argues she was merely protesting peacefully and not present during any riots or violence. She claims the police evidence is fabricated and she played no role in any conspiracy or riots.
- The court will determine if Narwal qualifies for bail based on the evidence and charges against her under the UAPA anti-terrorism law
This document is a court order summarizing a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order directing the police to register separate FIRs based on the complaints of the respondent Nishar Ahmed. The court order discusses the legal principles around clubbing of complaints and registration of separate FIRs. It notes that while similar complaints can be clubbed to protect the accused, if the incidents are different with different accused, separate FIRs should be registered to allow for separate investigations and trials. After reviewing the facts and complaints made by Nishar Ahmed regarding two separate incidents of rioting on different dates, the court finds that his later complaint was not properly clubbed with an earlier FIR and orders investigation of his complaints in separate FIRs.
moot file of sec 304 -b,201and 34 of indian penal codegagan deep
The document is an appeal filed on behalf of the prosecution in the Supreme Court of India regarding the case of Union of India vs. Ajay Gupta & Ors. It summarizes the key facts of the case, which involve the dowry death of a woman named Aarti shortly after her marriage. It outlines the judgments from the trial court and high court, and presents two issues for the Supreme Court's consideration: 1) whether Ajay Gupta and his wife can be held liable for dowry death and cruelty, and 2) whether two other individuals can be held liable for murder. It proceeds to provide arguments supporting the prosecution's position on both issues.
1) The document is a court order from a bail hearing for Dharmendra Singh Harman, who is accused in a case related to the January 2021 farmer protests in Delhi.
2) The prosecution argues that Harman played an active role as an instigator and member of the unlawful assembly, as seen in photos of him sitting atop his car with a flag during the protest.
3) While the defense argues Harman only broke barricades, the court finds the allegations serious as he was part of a mob that took the law into their own hands by diverting from the approved route and breaking barricades at multiple locations before entering the Red Fort area, where police were attacked.
4) Noting
This document summarizes a bail application hearing for Aarif @ Mota, who has been charged under various sections related to rioting and murder. The prosecution argues that Aarif was part of an unlawful assembly that killed Zakir during communal riots on February 25, 2020. However, the defense argues that it is unlikely a Muslim boy would have joined a riotous mob consisting mainly of Hindus. The eyewitnesses did not clearly describe Aarif's role, and video footage does not show him. As the applicant's involvement in the unlawful assembly and murder is unclear, the court finds that he should be granted bail.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a husband under Section 304B of dowry death. The deceased woman, Kanta Devi, was married to the accused in 1990. After two months of marriage, the deceased's mother-in-law demanded a motorcycle from her father, which he could not provide. The husband and mother-in-law then started harassing the deceased for more dowry. Five days before an event, the husband took the deceased back to her parents' house but brought her back two days later. She was found dead in her matrimonial home eight days later. Both the trial court and high court convicted the mother-in-law and husband of dowry death under Section 304B. The
Mayra alias vaishnvi_vilas_shirshikarn_and_anr_v__state_of_up_and_otherssabrangsabrang
This document summarizes 17 writ petitions pertaining to interfaith marriages contracted by petitioners in Uttar Pradesh, India. In each case, one petitioner converted religions in order to marry their partner of a different faith. They now seek protection from the state, apprehending threats from family members opposed to the interfaith unions. The state respondent argues the petitioners require district approval for their conversions and marriages. However, the petitioner's counsel argues citizens have the right to choose their own faith and partner without state interference. The court will analyze the relevant laws around conversion, marriage, and personal liberties in order to make a determination.
1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff S.M. Lakshmi Reddy seeking a declaration of their right and title over a property located in Survey No. 163 of Mandagiri village.
2. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the property from defendant No. 1 (a partner of Shobha Estates) in 1991, but defendants 2-4 claim to have purchased the same property through sale deeds executed in 2009 and 2010.
3. The plaintiff alleges these subsequent sale deeds are not valid and seeks an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the property.
This document summarizes a court case involving the petitioner Arun Sharma filing a writ petition against the state of Madhya Pradesh and others regarding violations of his rights. The petitioner alleges that police forcibly evicted him from his shop, detained and beat him, and published his photo identifying him as a criminal without cause. The court discusses the issues raised and arguments made by amicus curiae that publishing photos and details of an accused person violates their fundamental rights and privacy unless convicted. The court is considering whether executive instructions can override constitutional rights and whether compensation is due for rights violations of an innocent person.
This judgment involves two related matrimonial appeals. The High Court of Kerala upheld the family court's judgment granting a divorce to the wife on the grounds of cruelty by the husband. The court found that the husband treated the wife as a source of money, constantly harassing her and her family for funds. He mismanaged his real estate business and spent money lavishly. He also physically and sexually abused the wife, even during her pregnancy. The husband further levelled false allegations of adultery against the wife. Taking all the circumstances into account, the High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the divorce.
A 15-year old girl was brutally murdered by burning in Jharkhand. The post-mortem report found 100% burn injuries on her body. A writ petition was filed alleging the police were not properly investigating the case and the accused were threatening the petitioner. The court examined the case diary and found the investigation was proceeding in a very casual manner with long delays. The court criticized the lack of seriousness and urgency shown by the investigating authorities. The court then directed the DGP to immediately constitute a Special Investigating Team to take over the case and ensure its speedy completion without delay.
1) The petitioner Faizan Khan is accused of activating a SIM card using fraudulent documents in the name of "Jamia Coordination Committee" to facilitate terrorist acts related to the February 2020 Delhi riots.
2) Investigation revealed the SIM card was highly active in WhatsApp groups coordinating the protests and riots. The identity documents used to activate the SIM did not match the person who owned them.
3) The petitioner admitted to activating the SIM card at the request of accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, using fraudulent photos, to provide a SIM for the protests against the CAA amendment. Witnesses supported this account.
The Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings against a married couple where the wife had left her home state of Karnataka without her family's consent to marry the husband in Uttar Pradesh. The Court criticized the investigating officer for threatening the couple and insisting the wife return to Karnataka to close the missing person case, when he could have recorded her statement where she resided. The Court affirmed that adult individuals have the right to choose their own marriage partners without family consent. It encouraged the wife's family to accept the marriage and reestablish relations to reduce social tensions from inter-caste marriages. The police were directed to develop training on sensitively handling such cases.
1. The appellant, who belongs to a scheduled caste, filed a complaint alleging he experienced caste-based abuse and humiliation by influential individuals over two years, including being pushed off a horse.
2. He alleges the accused conspired in a WhatsApp group to conduct an acid attack and frame his trainer, but one member left after informing the trainer of the plot.
3. The appellant says the police refused to register his complaints and the courts granted long dates, dismissing his applications, leaving him in danger from the accused persons.
The document appears to be a petition filed in the High Court of Delhi seeking to quash a criminal complaint filed against the petitioner under defamation charges. The petition provides context regarding tweets made by the petitioner criticizing the appointment of the respondent as spokesperson by the BJP party, given his criminal history of assaulting an advocate and involvement in a sexual harassment case. The petition argues the tweets were made in public interest and truth, and therefore cannot amount to defamation under law. It seeks to quash the defamation proceedings against the petitioner.
Minister hate speech SC_Judgement_03-Jan-2023.pdfsabrangsabrang
1. The Supreme Court of India heard questions regarding restrictions on free speech and the scope of fundamental rights under the Constitution.
2. The questions arose from cases involving irresponsible statements made by two state ministers - one regarding a gang rape case, and the other regarding derogatory comments against women.
3. The Attorney General of India in his preliminary submissions argued that: a) restrictions on fundamental rights like free speech can only be imposed via legislation and the existing reasonable restrictions under Article 19 are exhaustive, and b) fundamental rights can only be claimed against the state or its instrumentalities as per the Constitution, and not against private individuals.
This document is a court judgment pertaining to bail applications filed by 4 petitioners - Liyakat Ali, Arshad Qayyum @ Monu, Gulfam @ VIP, and Irshad Ahmad - who have been accused in an FIR related to the February 2020 North East Delhi riots. The court heard the petitions together since they relate to the same FIR. While denying bail, the court noted the allegations against the petitioners include actively participating in the riots, destroying property, robbery, and instigating crowds. Eye witnesses and police officials claim to have identified the petitioners. The petitioners' lawyers argued they have been falsely implicated and the witness statements are unreliable.
1. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of his right and title over a plot of land, claiming he purchased it in 1991 based on a registered sale deed (Ex.A1) executed by the defendant No.1 who was a partner in Shobha Estates.
2. However, the defendants claim right and title based on subsequent sale deeds - defendant Nos. 2 and 3 claim right based on a 2009 sale deed (Ex.A2) executed by defendant No.1, and defendant No. 4 claims right based on a 2010 purchase from defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
3. The court must determine which party has valid right and title to the property based on the evidence and documents provided
The document is a judgment from the Gauhati High Court regarding an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency against a lower court order granting bail to Akhil Gogoi. Some key details:
- NIA's charges against Gogoi include leading a violent protest that turned into an economic blockade and pelted stones at police, with one officer sustaining grievous injuries.
- The lower court had granted Gogoi bail after the charge sheet was submitted. NIA argued this was an error as evidence showed Gogoi's role in conspiring violence and targeting a community.
- The High Court heard arguments on whether Gogoi's actions met the definition of "terrorist act" under
orissa HC sc st act caste name calling.pdfsabrangsabrang
The High Court of Orissa partially allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Ajay Pattanaik and Another challenging their cognizance under the SC and ST Act. While the Court found that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners for other offenses, it held that the offenses under the SC and ST Act were not established as there was no intent to insult or humiliate the witness due to his caste. The Court set aside the cognizance order under the SC and ST Act and directed the lower court to reconsider the process against the petitioners for the other charges.
1) The case involves State v. Tahir Hussain and others regarding FIR No. 80/20 filed at PS Dayalpur.
2) The court examined the charges and found that only Section 436 IPC (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house) was triable by sessions court.
3) Upon reviewing the complaint and statement of the sole witness Jai Bhagwan, the court determined that his allegations of losing furniture worth Rs. 35,000 when his loaded vehicle was stopped and articles burnt did not show commission of an offense under Section 436 IPC.
4) Therefore, all accused were discharged for the offense under Section 436 IPC
This document appears to be a court transcript detailing a retrial of a criminal case involving 17 defendants. The defendants were initially acquitted of charges related to arson, murder, and rioting during communal violence in Vadodara, India in 2002. However, the acquittal was later overturned by the Supreme Court of India due to allegations that witnesses were threatened during the original trial. The retrial transcript provides background on the communal violence, the charges against the defendants, and the prosecution's case against them.
This document is a court judgment pertaining to bail applications filed by three petitioners - Junaid, Chand Mohd, and Irshad - who have been accused in an FIR related to riots in North East Delhi in February 2020. The court discusses the evidence and arguments presented by the prosecution and the defense. The prosecution argues that eyewitnesses have implicated the petitioners in their statements, and the petitioners' call detail records place them at the scene of the crime. The defense argues that the eyewitness statements are inconsistent and not credible, and the call detail records alone do not prove the petitioners' involvement. The court also notes that a previous bail application by a co-accused in the same FIR was rejected, as the
- The document is an affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3 (State of Uttar Pradesh) in response to a writ petition filed in the Supreme Court of India regarding the arrest of Siddique Kappan.
- It summarizes the key facts of Kappan's arrest for allegedly attempting to disturb law and order in Hathras under the guise of journalism, and asserts that due process was followed.
- The affidavit denies allegations made in the writ petition, provides details on informing Kappan's family and access to lawyers, and argues the petition is not maintainable.
The document outlines a contempt petition filed in the Bombay High Court regarding the revocation of the suspension of 4 police personnel facing trial for custodial torture and death. It provides background on the original 2004 court orders that directed the suspension of the police personnel and departmental inquiries based on the custodial death of the petitioner's son. It describes the circumstances leading to the 2004 orders, including the custodial death, the filing of false cases by police to cover it up, and previous legal proceedings. The petitioner is seeking to bring the recent revocation of suspensions to the court's attention, as it is in contempt of the high court's prior orders.
The petitioner Pushpalatha S filed a petition against respondent Guruswamy S under Section 125(1) of CrPC seeking maintenance. The petitioner and respondent got married on 12-08-2010 in a mass marriage ceremony registered in the Sub-Registrar office of Chamarajanagar. However, the respondent left the petitioner and started living separately without reasonable cause after 2 months of marriage. The petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to maintain herself. Hence, the petitioner requested that the respondent be directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5000 for her livelihood.
This include some important formats applicable in Indian courts and is very essential for Law Students.
These formats may even be translated to the local (scheduled) indian languages and may be used in the respective courts.
1. The court document discusses an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding an incident of arson and desecration at the Madina Mosque in Shiv Vihar, Delhi on February 25-26, 2020.
2. While several incidents were originally mentioned, the application was pressed only regarding the mosque incident. The court notes that a cognizable offense is made out regarding the mosque incident based on the allegations.
3. The court directs the Station House Officer of Karawal Nagar Police Station to register an FIR regarding the mosque incident and conduct a complete investigation without being influenced by any suggested sections and while ensuring no immediate arrests are made without a proper investigation.
20220311 gauhati hc order in hbs comments on eviction casesabrangsabrang
The court document summarizes a case in which the complainant filed an FIR against the Chief Minister of Assam for alleged communally sensitive statements. The police did not register an FIR and closed the case after a preliminary inquiry. The complainant then filed a petition with the magistrate under Section 156(3) to direct the police to register an FIR. The magistrate allowed the petition, but the state has challenged this in the High Court. The High Court observed that serious legal issues are involved requiring detailed examination. It then issued a notice to the respondent, obtained case records, stayed the magistrate's order and listed the matter for further hearing.
1. The document summarizes a court case involving a petition filed by Mohd. Faiyyaz Mansuri challenging his detention under the National Security Act by the District Magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri.
2. The grounds for detention included posting provocative content on Facebook aimed at provoking Hindu sentiments and disturbing public order. An FIR was registered and the petitioner was arrested.
3. The detention order was approved, confirmed, and extended on multiple occasions by various authorities. The petitioner argued the charges in the FIR did not warrant detention under the National Security Act.
The document discusses a court order modifying an earlier order regarding the release of certain petitioners on bail. Specifically, it changes the wording of the earlier order to indicate that petitioners no.2, 6, 7 and 8 should be released on bail rather than petitioners no.1, 6, 7 and 8. The rest of the earlier order is to remain unchanged. The modification order was issued to correct discrepancies pointed out in the note for speaking to minutes.
This document discusses two petitions seeking to quash a defamation complaint filed against a newspaper and author. The complaint was filed by an individual claiming to be a member of the RSS organization. It references the article in question and examines whether the complainant qualifies as an "aggrieved person" under the law to file such a complaint. The court evaluates arguments from both sides and precedent case law. It finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove how his reputation was actually harmed or how the article lowered the reputation of RSS as required by law to constitute defamation.
Wp vernon gonsalves and anr vs state of maharashtra & ors.sabrangsabrang
This document is a writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court by Vernon Gonsalves and Anand Teltumbde, who are currently detained in Taloja Central Prison. It summarizes that an inmate who was in close contact with the petitioners has tested positive for COVID-19, putting the petitioners' health and safety at high risk as they are senior citizens. It requests the court to conduct COVID tests for the petitioners and make appropriate medical arrangements given the circumstances. The petition provides background details on the events leading to the petitioners' detention, their credentials, the charges against them, and the authorities involved in the matter.
1. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking Rs. 5 lakh compensation each, claiming they were illegally arrested and detained by police for 6 days in a criminal case.
2. Police registered an FIR for assault against the petitioners based on a complaint. The petitioners were arrested on the day the FIR was registered despite it being a bailable offense.
3. The petitioners were released on bail by a magistrate but rearrested and produced before an executive magistrate who ordered interim bonds, resulting in the petitioners' detention for 6 days until bonds could be furnished. The petitioners argued this was illegal.
The document is an order from a City Civil & Sessions Court in Ahmedabad, India regarding a criminal misc. application for anticipatory bail.
In summary:
1) The applicant, Avinash Das, is seeking anticipatory bail for offenses related to posting inflammatory photos on social media, including one of a woman wearing the Indian flag and another implying a politician took bribes.
2) The prosecution argues Das is intentionally trying to damage reputations and insult Indian culture/symbols. They also say he is not cooperating with their investigation.
3) After reviewing the details, the court rejects Das's application for anticipatory bail, reasoning that releasing him could encourage more cyber crimes against national honor and symbols.
Disampaikan pada FGD Kepmen Pertahanan tentang Organisasi Profesi JF Analis Pertahanan Negara
Jakarta, 20 Juni 2024
Dr. Tri Widodo W. Utomo, SH. MA.
Deputi Bidang Kajian Kebijakan dan Inovasi Administrasi Negara LAN RI
Causes Supporting Charity for Elderly PeopleSERUDS INDIA
Around 52% of the elder populations in India are living in poverty and poor health problems. In this technological world, they became very backward without having any knowledge about technology. So they’re dependent on working hard for their daily earnings, they’re physically very weak. Thus charity organizations are made to help and raise them and also to give them hope to live.
Donate Us:
https://serudsindia.org/supporting-charity-for-elderly-people-india/
#oldagehome, #donateforeldersinkurnool, #donateforelders, #donationforelders, #donateforoldpeople, #donationforoldpeople, #sponsorforelders, #sponsorforoldpeople, #donationforcharity, #charity, #seruds, #kurnool, #donateforoldagehome, #oldagehomedonation
Jennifer Schaus and Associates hosts a complimentary webinar series on The FAR in 2024. Join the webinars on Wednesdays and Fridays at noon, eastern.
Recordings are on YouTube and the company website.
https://www.youtube.com/@jenniferschaus/videos
1. 1
: ORDER BELOW APPLICATION AT EXH NO.294 :
IN
SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT NOS.3, 4, 5 of 2017 (Consolidated)
:ORDER :
1. The learned advocate for defendant No.1 Mr. S. S.
Shah has filed this applications (Exh Nos.294 to 296) under
Order 1, Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 prayed to strike out defendant No.1 Mr.
Narendra Modi, the then Chief Minister of Govt. of Gujarat from
the aforesaid numbered suits.
2. Special Civil Suit Nos.3/2017, 4/2017 & 5/2017 are
consolidated vide order passed by my predessessor judge and
therefore the said three applications vide Exh. Nos.294 to 296
are identical and therefore, I have passsed consolidated order.
3. In the said application, it is, inter alia, stated that the
plaintiff has filed suit for damages against all the defendants in
respect of the incident that took place on 28.02.2002 at Prantij
on National Highway No.8 on account of violence in the State of
Gujarat wherein the relatives of the plaintiffs are alleged to have
been killed by defendant Nos.9 to 14 and other unknown
persons. It is also stated that defendant No.1 was the Chief
Minister of the State and defendant No.2 was Home Minister
and defendant Nos.3 to 7 were officials of the State Government
and the defendant No.8 is the State Government of Gujarat. It is
2. 2
further stated that if the plaintiff succeeds in proving the alleged
facts of negligence or tort even then only the State would be
liable and there cannot be any liability of defendant No.1
personally for the same. It is further stated that defendant No.1
is joined without any reason and not required to be continued
for the alleged tortuous acts of other officers of the State. It is
stated that presence of defendant No.1 in the suit is at all not
necessary and legally sustainable considering the provisions of
Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code. It is also stated that defendant
No.1 is neither necessary nor proper party and, therefore, this
application should be allowed.
4. A copy of above mentioned application is served upon
the plaintiff through learned advocate on record.
5. On behalf of the plaintiffs in all the above numbered
suits, Mr. Imran Dawood son of Salim Dawood (Plaintiff in
Special Suit No.5 of 2017) has sent his written objection heading
as "Notice Relating to Jurisdiction and Forum of Non
Convenience" and objected to the present application. I would
refer to only relevant submissions in context of the suits from
the said affidavit, which are as under:
5.1 It is stated in the affidavit that he made affidavit on
his behalf as well as plaintiffs of Special Civil Suit Nos.3 & 4 of
2017 with required authority. It is alleged in paragraph12 that,
as per his understanding, his lawyer Mr. Anwar Malek will no
3. 3
longer be able to continue as lawyer due to targeted actions
against the lawyer. He has also expressed impossibility of
securing services of other lawyers. It is stated that joining of
defendant No.1 is relevant as made out in the plaint for actions
of specific individuals. He has also raised questions of
jurisdiction and nonconvenience of the forum alleging actions
against the lawyers of the plaintiffs.
5.2 Ld. Advocate on record of the plaintiffs, it is
pertaining to note that Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs on record
has filed his Vakilatnama withdraw pursis vide Exh.307 and
produced documentary list vide Exh.308.
6. Heard Mr. S. S. Shah, learned counsel for defendant
No.1 through video conference. None appeared for the plaintiffs
in the suits though duly served.
6.1 Ld. Adv. Mr. S. S. Shah has vehemently submitted
that if defendant No.1 is strike off then no any damages to the
plaintiffs becuase of the suit is not dismissed and claim of the
plaintiffs is continued. Ld. Adv. has furher submitted that
defendant No.1 was chief minister and facing this litigation
since 2004 though he is neither necessary nor proper party to
join as defendant No.1 in the suits proceedings and therefore
requested to strike off the name of Mr. Narendra Modi at present
Prime Minister of India. Ld. Adv. Mr. S. S. Shah has vehemently
submitted that looking to the averments and allegations made in
4. 4
the plaint, it can be said that whether said allegations and
averments are political, covered by inquiry by Nanavati
Commission or relating to constitutional policies and there is
not at all any specific allegations against defendant No.1 and
therefore defendant No.1 is required to be strike off from the suit
proceedings.
6.2 Ld. Adv. Mr. S. S. Shah has vehemently submitted
that the reply of the application Nos.294 to 296 is on record filed
by Mr. Imran Dawood S/o. Mohammad Salim Dawood (plaintiff
in Special Civil Suit No.5/2017) and therefore looking to the
facts and circumstances of the facts and circumstances of this
case, his advocate has filed his Vakilatnama withdraw pursis
which is also pending for order and therefore, there is no need
to heard Ld. Adv. Mr. Malik for this application and requested to
allowed this application.
7. I have carefully gone through the contents of the
application and the counter affidavit; the averments made in the
plaint of the plaintiff and the written statement filed on behalf of
the defendant No.8 the State government,. Before coming to the
averments in the plaint, it is necessary to state that defendant
No.1 was the Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat on date of
the alleged tortuous incident. That, after ‘Godhra Carnage’,
communal riots broke out in the State and one of the incidents
in which the plaintiffs of the above suits lost their near relatives
6. 6
all material time the Chief Minister of State of Gujarat and
constitutionally, statutorily and personally liable for being in
complete command of the State machinery. It is also alleged that
defendant No.1 was elected on B.J.P. ticket and Sangh
Pracharak of R.S.S. and continued the policy of R.S.S. through
defendant No.8 State. The plaint also describes so many things
in so many words alleging the same as the activities against
Muslims. That, there was alert from I.B. of defendant No.8 for
the movement of Karsevak of Ayodhya but there was complete
failure of state administration. It is alleged that it was the acts
and omissions of defendant No.1, which had resulted into
genocidal killings of Muslims. There are also allegations against
the alleged administrative policies of defendant No.1 and the
State.
7.3 It is asserted that defendant Nos.1 to 7 were in
command hierarchy. It is further alleged that defendant No.1
with some Senior cabinet colleague arrived at Godhra on
27.02.2002 and against the advice of local administration took
the decision of taking charred bodies of passengers of Sabarmati
Express to Ahmedabad. That, defendant No.1 did not oppose
‘Bandh Alan’ given by V.H.P. and failed in his constitutional
duties to maintain the Rule of Law, which carried out anti
Muslim violence on or after 27.02.2002. That, defendant No.1
with other defendants by their acts of commission/omissions
acted in furtherance of genocidal killings. That, defendant No.1
7. 7
deliberately did not take any action against the newspapers
fanning communal passions. That, defendant No.1 is, thus,
responsible for increasing violence against Muslim community.
8. Upon a careful perusal of the plaint, it appears that
the plaintiff has attempted to narrate not only riot incidents
following Godhra incident in the State but also criticized the
Government and the administrative actions of the Government
and, therefore, I do not deem it fit to narrate all such assertion,
pre & post the cause of action, i.e. the incident in question. It
may also be stated here that the entire plaint contains
allegations only general, non specific and vague against
defendant No.1. There is not a single averment showing
presence of defendant No.1 at the scene of offence at the
relevant time or his direct or indirect involvement in the alleged
act or any specific role from which reasonable ground for malice
or intentional acts or omissions can be found, entitling the
plaintiff to claim any legal right or relief against defendant No.1
in his personal or official capacity in the suit. It is nowhere
stated as to how defendant No.1 is personally liable for the
alleged acts or omissions of officials of defendant No.8. Though
the plaint contains special allegations against defendant No.1,
the plaintiff has neither shown any source of such information
nor produced any material in support thereof. The averments in
the plaint are made cleverly to connect defendant No.1 with all
pre & post Godhra incidents and thereby to array defendant
8. 8
No.1 as perpetrator of the crime making him liable for
compensation. It may be noted here that outcome of the
criminal trial of this incident as well as whether defendant No.1
was made accused or not in the criminal trial, has not been
brought on record by the plaintiff till date. In my view, such
reckless allegations without any basis, i.e. evidence, can hardly
establish any nexus or help in raising cause of action against
defendant No.1.
9. At this stage, it would be advantageous to refer to the
provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code, which reads as
under :
"10(2) Court may strike out or add parties. The
Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either
upon or without the application of either party, and
on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just,
order that the name of any party improperly joined,
whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and
that the name of any person who ought to have been
joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose
presence before the court may be necessary in order
to enable the Court effectually and completely to
adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved
in the suit, be added."
9.1 A bare reading of the above provisions makes it clear
9. 9
that it is open to the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, to
add any person as necessary party or strike out a party
improperly joined. The improper party means a person who has
no connection with the reliefs claimed in the plaint and is,
therefore, neither necessary nor proper party. In the decision of
Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency
Convention Centre & Hotels Private Limited. A.I.R. 2010 SC
3109, it is held as under:
"A 'necessary party' is a person who ought to have
been joined as party and in whose absence no
effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. If
a 'necessary party' is not impleaded, the suit itself is
liable to be dismissed. A 'proper party' is a party who,
thought not a necessary party, is a person whose
presence would enable the court to completely,
effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters
in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person
in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made.
If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary
party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him,
against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a
person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit
property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff,
will not make such person a necessary or proper
party to the suit for specific performance.'
12. 12
of the plaintiff. A bare reading of the plaint makes it further
evident that bald allegations are made against defendant No.1
and none of the averments indicates malice on the part of
defendant No.1, which resulted into the incident in question.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion and in my
considered view, this application is required to be allowed.
Hence, I passed the following order :
::: O R D E R :::
(1) The application below Exh.294 is hereby allowed.
(2) The name of the defendant No.1 in Special Civil Suit
No.3, 4 & 5 of 2017 is strike out.
(3) It is ordered to the plaintiff that to delete the name of
the defendant No.1 from the cause title of the Special
Civil Suit Nos.3, 4 & 5 of 2017 and further ordered to
office of this court to delete the name of defendant
No.1 from record of the Special Civil Suit Nos.3, 4 & 5
of 2017 within seven days from today.
(4) No order as to costs.
Pronounced through video conferrence today on 5th
day September 2020.
Date: 05/09/2020 (Sureshkumar Kaludan Gadhavi)
Place : Prantij (Judge Code GJ01023)
Principal Senior Civil Judge
K_J_P Prantij.