HC upholds charges against suspended Delhi govt official Khakha
The High Court also upheld the charges of causing the minor girl's miscarriage and the disappearance of evidence framed against the official's wife, Seema Rani.
It further refused to set aside the charge against his two children and wife under Section 21 of the POCSO Act for failure to report the offence despite having knowledge.
'This court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or legal infirmity in the order passed by the sessions court framing charges against petitioner Premoday Khakha for offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(3), 323, and 354 of the IPC, and Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act,' Justice Swarana Kana Sharma said in the judgment passed on July 15 and made available on July 28.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
32 minutes ago
- India.com
VVIP Chopper Deal Case: Michel's Extradition Sought For Trial Of Offence Of Money Laundering Also, Says EDVVIP Chopper Deal Case: Michel's Extradition Sought For Trial Of Offence Of Money Laundering Also, Says ED
The Enforcement Directorate (ED), while opposing a plea of alleged middleman Christian Michel James seeking release in the VVIP chopper deal case, stated that besides other offenses, his extradition was sought for trial in the money laundering case also. The ED filed a reply on Tuesday opposing the plea pending before the court of Special Judge Sanjay Jindal at Rouse Avenue Court. The ED said that the plea is "misleading" and "devoid of any merits." It deserves to be dismissed. It is also stated that Article 17 of the 'Extradition Treaty' with the UAE not only permits trial for offences in respect of which extradition of an accused person is sought, but also for the offences connected. The reply of ED also mentioned that the reading of the judgement of September 2, 2018, passed by the Dubai Supreme Court, would show that besides other offences, Michele's extradition was also sought in respect of the offence of money laundering. The agency also stated that James was arrested in the money laundering case on December 22, 2018. The period of maximum punishment of 7 years has not expired yet. In this scenario, the provision of section 436A providing a release does not apply to the accused. On Monday, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had argued that Christian Michel James cannot be and should not be released without pleading guilty after framing of charges, he is an accused in. British National James seeking release from custody on the ground that he has spent a period in custody equivalent to a maximum punishment of 7 years. He is on bail in both the CBI and ED's Money laundering case, but still in custody due to non-filing of bail bond. He has to surrender his passport to the court, which has already expired. James was extradited to India on December 4, 2018 and was arrested by the CBI. Thereafter, he was arrested by the ED in the money laundering case. Special CBI Judge Sanjay Jindal heard the arguments on the application moved by Christian Michel James. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Senior Advocate DP Singh, along with Manu Mishra, had argued that James shouldn't be granted release from jail just because he has undergone a period of 7 years in custody. It was further argued by the CBI's counsel that framing of charges has to take place. In case, even if, charges under section 467 (Forgery) IPC, not framed against him, he cannot be released without pleading guilty. Section 476 IPC has maximum punishment upto life imprisonment. "Only then can my lords say that his sentence is now over. Otherwise, he has to approach a constitutional court," the CBI counsel had submitted. On the other hand, advocate Aljo K Joseph, counsel for the accused, had argued that he was entitled to be released under the provisions of Section 436A of the CrPC. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) NK Matta, who appeared for the ED. He submitted that the condition of extradition doesn't apply to the case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as he was arrested subsequently to the arrest by the CBI. SPP Matta also submitted that remission can be considered only after punishment. The seven years of punishment have not been completed in the ED's case. The court will continue to hear submissions on Wednesday also.
New Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Allahabad High Court judge barred from hearing criminal cases
NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented order, the Supreme Court has stripped criminal matters off the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge 'till he demits office' after he 'erroneously' upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. Taking stern view on the judge's order, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed removal of criminal matters from his roster till his retirement while tasking him to sit with a senior judge in a division bench. The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature. Calling the order by the high court judge 'worst and most erroneous', the top court said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying that the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for recovery of the balance amount. 'The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court,' the bench said. The top court was hearing a challenge to the high court's order which dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction. 'The Chief Justice of the High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge... make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,' the top court order read.
Hans India
32 minutes ago
- Hans India
Centre opposes lowering age of consent
New Delhi: The Union government has objected before the Supreme Court to any move to reduce the age of consent under child protection laws from 18 to 16 years, warning that such a change would open the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of assent. 'Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law,' the Centre, represented Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, clarified in written submissions placed on record. To buttress its argument, the Centre cited a 2007 Ministry of Women and Child Development study which found that 53.22% of children reported facing one or more forms of sexual abuse. It noted that in 50% of these cases, the abusers were persons in positions of trust or authority, including parents, relatives, neighbours, and school staff. 'The report concluded that children are particularly vulnerable when the offender is a known figure, as the abuse is concealed, normalised, or silenced through emotional manipulation or fear,' the Centre explained. The Centre's position is in contrast to that of senior advocate and amicus curiae Indira Jaising, who has argued before the court that consensual sexual activity between adolescents aged 16 to 18 should not be classified as 'abuse' or criminalised under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Jaising urged the court to read a 'close-in-age exception' into the law, which would apply to consensual sexual activity where both individuals are adolescents aged between 16 and 18. She submitted that the term 'child' under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act should not include adolescents in this age group engaged in consensual sexual relationships. Such an exception, she argued, would align with the protective intent of POCSO while avoiding its misuse in cases involving non-exploitative adolescent relationships. However, the Centre maintained that defining 'child' as a person below 18 years was a 'deliberate choice, grounded in the recognition that minors lack the legal and developmental capacity to give meaningful and informed consent in matters involving sexual activity.' 'The decision to criminalise sexual acts with children under 18 years reflects a clear understanding of the vulnerability of minors, the common occurrence of coercion and manipulation in such situations, and the challenges in proving the absence of consent when minors are involved… This legislative position embodies the collective will of Parliament, acting in furtherance of its constitutional duty to protect children,' the Centre submitted. 'The legislative intent is further reinforced by the age threshold adopted in other enactments, including the Indian Majority Act, 1875, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006… The legal position is again affirmed under Section 375 of the IPC and is retained under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, where sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age constitutes rape per se, regardless of her purported willingness,' the Union government submitted. The government said the legislative framework on the age of consent under Indian law was rooted in a clear and unambiguous intent to provide a 'robust, non-negotiable shield' to minors against sexual exploitation.
