Court to act if live evidence evinces prima facie case stronger than suspicion: Supreme Court on power under S 319 CrPC
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
6 hours ago
- The Print
Protests erupt in Chennai over SC order on removal of street dogs in Delhi-NCR
Police said the demonstrations in Delhi were organised despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), formerly Section 144 of the CrPC, which is currently in force as part of security measures ahead of Independence Day. According to officials, the protests turned unruly when police attempted to disperse the demonstrators, leading to clashes at some sites. The protests in Chennai came days after similar demonstrations in the national capital. On Friday, Delhi Police registered four FIRs in connection with protests held by dog lovers without prior permission on August 11 and 12 in the New Delhi district. Chennai: Animal lovers and rights activists staged a protest in Chennai on Sunday against the Supreme Court's order directing that all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR be moved to shelters within eight weeks. 'Those who refused to leave the protest sites despite repeated requests were detained. Legal action will be taken against all those found violating the law,' the Delhi Police said. One viral clip from the protests shows the Station House Officer of Tughlaq Road police station being manhandled by protesters, while another video shows a confrontation between a woman sub-inspector and a female demonstrator inside a bus. The protests followed the Supreme Court's August 11 order directing authorities to ensure that all localities in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad are free of stray dogs. The court had ruled that captured animals should not be released back onto the streets. On Thursday, a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria reserved its order on petitions seeking a stay on the directive. The bench said it would pass an interim order after hearing arguments from all sides. At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi government, said there was a 'loud vocal minority' opposing the order, while a 'silent suffering majority' supported action. 'In a democracy, there is a vocal majority and one who silently suffers. We had seen videos of people eating chicken, eggs, etc., and then claiming to be animal lovers. It was an issue to be resolved. Children were dying… Sterilisation did not stop rabies; even if you immunised them, that did not stop mutilation of children,' Mehta submitted. Citing World Health Organisation data, the Solicitor General said 37 lakh dog bites were reported in 2024, with 305 rabies deaths, most among children under 15 years of age. 'Dogs do not have to be killed… they have to be separated. Parents cannot send children out to play. Nobody is an animal hater,' he added. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing an NGO, questioned whether municipal authorities had created enough shelter homes for the dogs. 'Now dogs are picked up. But the order says once they are sterilised, do not leave them out in the community,' he argued, seeking a stay on the August 11 order. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also opposed the directive. He said, 'Dog bites exist, but there have been zero rabies deaths in Delhi this year. Of course, bites are bad, but you cannot create a horror situation like this.' The bench observed that the core problem was the failure of local bodies to implement the Animal Birth Control Rules. Justice Nath remarked, 'Rules and laws are framed by the Parliament, but they are not followed. Local authorities are not doing what they should be doing. On the one hand, humans are suffering, and on the other hand, animal lovers are here.' In its detailed order, the court stressed that the August 11 decision was not taken on a 'momentary impulse' but after two decades of authorities failing to address a matter directly affecting public safety. A separate bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Madadev noted that the issue concerns both human welfare and animal welfare. 'This is not personal,' the bench said. (ANI) This report is auto-generated from ANI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. Also read: How Delhi is mobilising to save its street dogs — shelters, safe houses, and watch patrols
News18
2 days ago
- News18
Delhi Police file four FIRs over unauthorised dog lovers protests
New Delhi [India], August 15 (ANI): Delhi Police have lodged four FIRs in connection with protests staged by dog lovers without prior permission at multiple locations in the New Delhi district on August 11 and 12, officials said on said the demonstrations were held despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), earlier Section 144 of the CrPC, which is currently in force in the district as part of heightened security measures ahead of Independence to officials, the protests turned unruly when police personnel attempted to disperse the demonstrators, leading to clashes at some sites. Several videos of the incidents have since gone viral on social media, drawing public attention.'Those who refused to leave the protest sites despite repeated requests were detained. Legal action will be taken against all those found violating the law," said the Delhi viral clip shows the Station House Officer of Tughlaq Road police station being manhandled by a group of protesters, while another video captures a confrontation between a woman sub-inspector and a female protester inside a Thursday, the Supreme Court reserved its order on pleas seeking a stay on its August 11 directive to remove all stray dogs from localities in the Delhi-NCR region and place them in shelter homes.A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and NV Anjaria stated that it would pass an interim order on the August 11 decision of a different the outset, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi government, remarked that there was a 'loud vocal minority" and a 'silent suffering majority."'In a democracy, there is a vocal majority and one who silently suffers. We had seen videos of people eating chicken, eggs, etc., and then claiming to be animal lovers. It was an issue to be resolved. Children were dying… Sterilisation did not stop rabies; even if you immunised them, that did not stop mutilation of children," the Solicitor General August 11, the apex court had ordered that all localities in Delhi, Noida, Ghaziabad, Gurugram and Faridabad be made free of stray dogs, with no compromise on the matter. It had also made it clear that no captured animal should be released back onto the streets. (ANI)
News18
3 days ago
- News18
SC Quashes Criminal Case After Divorce, Says Law Not To Be Used For Harassment
The court observed that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring finality to personal disputes that have run their course The Supreme Court, on August 12, held that where a matrimonial relationship has ended in divorce and both parties have settled into their respective lives, criminal prosecution arising from that past relationship should not be allowed to continue as a form of harassment. A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan observed that in appropriate cases, the power to quash such proceedings is essential to uphold fairness and bring finality to personal disputes that have run their course. The court was hearing an appeal filed by Navneesh Aggarwal and his parents against the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated August 1, 2024, which had declined to quash an FIR lodged under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the IPC by his former wife. The wife had raised no objection to the quashing, and both parties had ended their relationship through divorce by mutual consent, withdrawing all pending cases. The bench said that within the framework of inherent powers, a High Court may quash a criminal proceeding, complaint, or FIR if it is satisfied that, in light of such a settlement, there is little likelihood of conviction and that continuing the proceedings would result in injustice. The court stressed the need to apply the law in a way that addresses genuine grievances while preventing misuse. The judges noted that once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on, continuing criminal proceedings against family members, particularly in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose. Such continuation, they said, only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer active. In this case, neither party was interested in pursuing criminal proceedings. The bench invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to advance complete justice, quashing the chargesheet and FIR registered at Police Station Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, along with all other criminal proceedings arising from them. The court referred to Dara Lakshmi Narayana v State of Telangana (2025), which held that criminal law is not to be used as a tool of harassment and that judicial scrutiny must guard against such misuse. It also cited Mala Kar v State of Uttarakhand (March 19, 2024) and Arun Jain v State of NCT of Delhi (April 1, 2024), in which it had exercised powers under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes once the parties had divorced, holding that continuation of prosecution in such circumstances amounted to an abuse of process. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, noting that the former wife no longer intended to prosecute the case. It found that continuing the proceedings would only result in harassment to the appellants, given the facts of the matter, and that no useful purpose would be served by taking the case to its conclusion. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on March 6, 2018. About ten months later, the wife left the matrimonial home with her daughter from an earlier marriage. Multiple cases were filed thereafter, including the present FIR. A decree of divorce by mutual consent was granted by the Family Court on January 19, 2024, and all other pending proceedings initiated by the wife were withdrawn. When the appellants sought quashing of the FIR before the High Court, their plea was dismissed on the ground that certain allegations relating to the victimisation of the child had been sufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court, however, found no justification for continuing the criminal proceedings in view of the mutual settlement, divorce, and the wife's lack of interest in pursuing the matter. tags : divorce marriage supreme court view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: August 15, 2025, 05:17 IST News india SC Quashes Criminal Case After Divorce, Says Law Not To Be Used For Harassment Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
