Kerala High Court quashes case against ex-municipal secretary, says no offence without deliberate disrespect to National Flag.
A Delhi court dismissed a woman’s defamation complaint against her husband, who had accused her of cruelty and adultery in a divorce petition. The court emphasized that defamation requires intention to harm reputation. It also cautioned against using the criminal justice system for personal disputes, reinforcing that legal proceedings should not be misused.
The Supreme Court ruled that proving mens rea is essential for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. In a case involving a man and his family accused of motivating his wife’s suicide, the court determined insufficient evidence of intent to sustain charges, emphasizing a critical temporal link between instigation and the act.
![[Section 498A IPC] Delay of Complaint For 12 Years Doesn't Rule Out Cruelty Towards Wife: Supreme Court](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Court-No-6-copy-2.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court reinforced that delays in filing complaints about marital cruelty do not negate the existence of such cruelty, as evidenced in a case involving a deceased woman’s husband and in-laws. While they were not charged with abetting suicide, proceedings under Section 498A IPC will continue based on allegations of mental and physical harassment.
![[POCSO Act] "Trauma And Shock Caused Mother's Mind After Learning Unmarried Daughter Is 18 Weeks Pregnant": HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Mother for Failing to Report Offence](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/image-4-3.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Kerala High Court, led by Justice A. Badharudeen, quashed criminal proceedings against a mother for failing to report her 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy, citing her emotional trauma as the cause for her delay. The Court emphasized that her actions were not intentional and further prosecution would be unjustified.
![[Sheena Bora Case] "Pending Work That Needs My Presence": Indrani Mukerjea Approaches SC, Seeks Permission to Travel Abroad](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/image-77-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Indrani Mukerjea, accused in the Sheena Bora murder case, seeks Supreme Court approval for international travel despite a Bombay High Court ruling against it. A special court initially permitted her visit to Spain and the UK for ten days. Mukerjea argues her presence is vital for necessary administrative tasks. The court’s decision is pending.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed criminal proceedings against HDFC Bank, ruling that a corporation cannot possess mens rea, or criminal intent, needed for liability under the IPC. The court emphasized that the bank officials acted inadvertently in misinterpreting orders, lacking evidence of malicious intent or misappropriation, thus quashing the FIR.
The Supreme Court overturned a Madras High Court ruling that viewing child pornography in private isn’t an offence under the POCSO Act. It ruled that intentions to gain from such acts are crucial in deciding violations. The Court also urged a terminology change to ‘child sexually abusive and exploitative material’ for legal clarity.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court denied bail to a quack doctor accused of causing a death due to improper treatment. The court emphasized that unregistered medical practitioners are a serious threat to public health in India. The accused doctor allegedly administered incorrect treatment which led to the death of a patient, and the court stressed the serious risk and impact of unregistered medical practitioners on public health. The accused doctor’s counsel argued lack of intent and knowledge of causing death, along with absence of necessary professional qualifications. The court highlighted the need for scientific and medical evidence in determining the cause of death before the trial.
Today (9th April): The Gujarat High Court upheld the Constitutional Validity of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, and its associated rules. Over 150 petitions challenging the law’s validity were dismissed, as the Court found the Act to align with constitutional provisions, not contradict central laws, and not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.