Latest news with #BhartiyaNagrikSurakshaSanhita
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Bombay HC quashes notice issued by magistrate to HDFC Bank CEO in criminal defamation complaint
The Bombay High Court earlier this month quashed a notice issued to HDFC Bank and its Managing Director and CEO Sashidhar Jagdishan by the magistrate court in a criminal defamation complaint filed by Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust (LKMM Trust), which oversees the Lilavati Hospital in Bandra (West). The HC held that the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Girgaon had issued notice to Jagdishan in contravention of procedure laid down under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The magistrate on the same day issued notice to the Bank, Jagdishan and others. The Trust, in its criminal complaint had alleged that the Bank and Jagdishan had made 'malicious and derogatory' statements against the Trust and its permanent trustee Prashant Mehta. Aggrieved by the notice issued in criminal defamation complaint, Jagdishan approached the HC. Senior advocates Ravi Kadam and Sudeep Pasbola for Jagdishan argued that the magistrate had issued the notice on the same day the complaint was filed and order to issue notice was made without recording complainant's sworn verification, which was mandated as per the law. On the other hand, senior advocate Aabad Ponda for the Trust argued that the magistrate was entitled to issue notice before taking cognisance of the case. The Trust argued that section 223 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) provided that the court has to hear the accused before taking cognisance of the complaint, which the court rejected and said the same was incorrect if the main provision and the proviso of the section were considered together. Justice Shriram M Modak emphasised that verification of complainant and witnesses after filing of private complaint was necessary and the proposed accused was required to be heard. 'If we consider the chronology, it shows that after filing of complaint there has to be verification of the complainant and witnesses and when prior to decision on taking cognizance is taken, the accused needs to be heard. Hearing the accused cannot be interpreted prior to recording the verification and the statement of witnesses if any,' Justice Modak observed. 'There is a purpose of recording the verification. It gives an opportunity to the Magistrate to ascertain whether to proceed further or not, the judge added and quashed and set aside the order of issuance of notice to proposed accused Jagdishan. The court clarified that the magistrate was at liberty to proceed with the matter by recording the verification of the Complainant and all witnesses, if any and then pass the appropriate order. The Trust has also filed a defamation suit in Bombay HC against the HDFC Bank and Jagdishan seeking damages of Rs. 1,000 crore and the same is pending before the court. Meanwhile, Jagdishan had filed a criminal writ petition challenging FIR registered against him on a complaint filed by the Trust, accusing him of accepting a bribe of Rs 2.05 crore to help a group consisting of one Chetan Mehta and other erstwhile trustees to retain alleged illegal control over the trust. The next hearing on Jagdishan's writ plea is scheduled on August 20.
Time of India
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
State moves apex court over FIR against cops in Parbhani custodial death, a day before HC's July 11 deadline
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Parbhani police are yet to register an FIR against the policemen concerned in the Somnath Suryavanshi custodial death case, even a week after the July 11 deadline set by the Bombay high court's Aurangabad bench lapsed. State govt, instead, filed a petition in the Supreme Court on July 10 against the HC's July 4 order that directed registration of an FIR within a week. This matter has been listed for a hearing before an SC bench on July 25, but there is no stay yet on the HC's directive. The HC had directed Parbhani superintendent of police (SP) to register the FIR on the basis of a complaint application filed on Dec 18, 2024, by Somnath's mother, Vijayabai, at Mondha police station and hand over the investigation to an officer of the rank of deputy SP. Sandanshiv Milind, one of the lawyers representing Somnath's mother in the HC, told TOI: "The court specifically asked state to register the FIR within a week. As far as we know, police have neither obtained any extension from the HC nor have secured any stay or relief from the SC. This means there is already contempt of court." Milind said, "Two representations have already been made to the Parbhani SP with a request to register the FIR in accordance with the HC directive." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Mr. Chirag's Ultimate Option Selling Strategy – Learn For Free TradeWise Learn More Undo When contacted, Parbhani SP Ravindrasingh Pardeshi said, "I have no comment to offer on this matter for now." On Dec 11, 2024, protests and a riot broke out in Parbhani over reports of an alleged desecration of a replica of the Indian Constitution. Somnath, a resident of Pune who was on a visit to Parbhani to appear for his final-year law examination, was among the people arrested by police in connection with the rioting case. After his initial custody remand, he was sent to jail in magisterial custody but succumbed on Dec 15, 2024, to injuries sustained in the alleged police brutality. His mother, Vijayabai, filed a petition in the HC seeking registration of an FIR against the policemen responsible for the alleged brutality. On July 4, the HC bench of justice Vibha Kankanwadi and justice Sanjay Deshmukh said that there was "prima facie material" indicating "custodial brutality and violation of constitutional rights" and ordered registration of an FIR against the policemen within a week. The court then said that the postmortem report and a magisterial inquiry under section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita revealed "24 visible injuries" on Somnath's body and concluded that the probable cause of death was "shock following multiple injuries". "Now, when there was prima facie material on record i.e. on the basis of inquest panchnama, postmortem report, report of learned judicial magistrate first class… a cognisable offence was made out and, therefore, state ought to have registered the FIR," the HC said. When contacted, Maharashtra's chief standing counsel in the Supreme Court, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, told TOI: "I have no comments to offer for now as the matter is sub judice." Maharashtra director general of police Rashmi Shukla could not be reached for her comments on the issue.
Time of India
04-07-2025
- Time of India
HC directs registration of FIR against cops in Somnath Surayawanshi custodial death in Parbhani
Chhatrapati Sambhajingar: The Bombay high court's Aurangabad bench has directed registration of an FIR within a week based on a complaint application of Dec 18, 2024, by the mother of Somnath Suryawanshi, a 35-year-old law student, who died in police custody after his arrest in a rioting case. A bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay Deshmukh noted in an interim order on Friday that there was "prima facie material" indicating "custodial brutality and violation of constitutional rights". The FIR is to be registered at Mondha police station in Parbhani district. The court directed Parbhani superintendent of police (SP) to hand over the investigation to an officer of the rank of deputy SP. Somnath's mother, Vijayabai, had filed a petition in this matter. You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune The court observed that the postmortem report and a magisterial inquiry under section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita revealed "24 visible injuries" on Somnath's body and concluded that the probable cause of death was "shock following multiple injuries". "Now, when there was prima facie material on record i.e. on the basis of inquest panchnama, postmortem report, report of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class… a cognisable offence was made out and, therefore, the state ought to have registered the FIR," the bench said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 2025 Top Trending local enterprise accounting software [Click Here] Esseps Learn More Undo On Dec 11, 2024, protests and a riot broke out in Parbhani over reports of an alleged desecration of a replica of the Indian Constitution. Somnath was among the people arrested by police in connection with the rioting case and after his initial custody remand, he was sent to jail in magisterial custody but succumbed to injuries sustained in alleged police brutalities. "Videos showed Somnath holding a copy of the Constitution and recording the protest. Somnath and other detainees were assaulted and threatened, making them too afraid to complain before the magistrate when produced on Dec 12 and 14, 2024, for remand proceedings. Somnath died on Dec 15 in judicial custody. Though police claimed he died of a heart attack, the postmortem report and judicial inquiry contradicted this," said lawyer Milind Sandanshiv, who along with senior lawyer Prakash Ambedkar is representing the Suryawanshis in the case. The HC noted the judicial inquiry, which found a "gross violation of human rights" and concluded that "Somnath died due to police authorities". The HC also questioned the conduct of the CID, particularly a deputy superintendent of police, for bypassing the original postmortem team and instead seeking a medical opinion from J J Hospital, Mumbai. "We may not express our opinion in this respect at this stage, yet the question that is required to be gone into is, as to why he had not approached the seven members team from Aurangabad, who conducted the autopsy, for the opinion in respect of queries," the bench remarked.
Time of India
30-06-2025
- Time of India
Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission issues notice to DGP over video showing security corporation personnel stopping motorists inside Mumbai-Pune Expressway tunnel
Mumbai: The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) has taken suo moto cognisance of a video posted on social media showing Maharashtra State Security Corporation personnel stopping and "harassing" motorists in the Mumbai-Pune Expressway tunnel. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The commission issued a notice to the state DGP to inquire into the matter. "Employees of the corporation do not possess police powers as prescribed by the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Consequently, a prima facie case of serious by entirely unauthorised persons is established," said MSHRC chairperson A M Badar while issuing notice to the corporation. MSHRC has called for a report of a fact-finding inquiry from the director general of police and the managing director of the Maharashtra State Security Corporation within eight weeks. The MSHRC stated that the recording alleged that Maharashtra State Security Corporation, Mumbai, employees were deployed on the expressway from Pune to Mumbai and were extorting or harassing travellers by stopping vehicles in the tunnel. The complaint was registered suo motu based on the video clip circulating on a social media platform. The MSHRC stated that in addition to the illegality, the actions of the Maharashtra State Security Corporation employees posed a threat to travellers' lives and such actions might result in vehicular accidents on the expressway. The Maharashtra State Security Corporation, Mumbai, was established by the state govt primarily to provide security cover to industrial and financial institutions, as well as municipal or other state corporations.
Indian Express
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Pre-arrest bail denied to man booked for ‘sharing objectionable post' against Maharashtra CM
The sessions court in Mumbai rejected anticipatory bail application of a Pune resident booked for allegedly sharing an objectionable post against Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, noting that no case was made out for pre-arrest bail considering the nature of offence against him. Additional sessions judge Prashant C Kale on June 21 passed an order on an application by city resident Santosh Ramchandra Darekar, apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR registered by Cyber Cell, nodal office. The FIR was registered for offences punishable under sections 197(1)(c) (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 353(2) (public mischief) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS) along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. As per the prosecution, the complaint was registered by BJP leader Yojna Virendra Thokle alleging that Darekar shared an objectionable post on Facebook against Fadnavis on May 23. However, the applicant argued that he was falsely implicated in the case. He added that while the notice under section 35(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was sent to the applicant, he could not remain present before the investigating officer due to the illness of his mother. The applicant argued that he was not having any criminal antecedents and was ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and would abide by all the conditions if he was granted anticipatory bail. The prosecution opposed the plea stating that Darekar had prima facie committed the offence and his mobile was required to be seized to conduct its technical analysis, and therefore he should not be granted pre-arrest bail. The court noted that the probe was in progress and there was a 'prima facie case against the accused and that can not be ignored or overlooked'. Rejecting his plea, the court added that Darekar has not complied with notice issued to him and 'the grounds for refusal of anticipatory bail put forth by the investigating agency are apparently genuine'.
