Latest news with #CrPC
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court acts against woman for hiding facts over divorce settlement: 'Nipped in the bud'
A Delhi court on Monday reportedly initiated criminal proceedings against a woman for allegedly concealing the fact that she received ₹10 lakh during her divorce settlement. The court said that any misuse of the law meant for women's protection had to be 'nipped in the bud,' according to a PTI news agency report. "Complainant has admitted that all the disputes between the parties were already settled before the family court of southeast district and the first motion of divorce by mutual consent was passed on November 22, 2022, pursuant to which, the complainant received a sum of ₹10 lakh, out of the total settlement amount of ₹19 lakh…," judicial magistrate Anam Rais Khan, who was hearing the case said on April 25, as quoted by PTI. The husband was willing to pay the outstanding amount, but these crucial facts were concealed by the complainant in the present petition, the order added. The court said, 'Complainant deliberately did not appear for recording of her statement for the second motion of divorce by mutual consent before the family court.' It further added that the former husband despite paying ₹10 lakh, is standing on the same footing, and the present case was filed after receiving the said amount. There was a prima facie violation of the family court's order and the undertaking given on oath to the family court too. The court called this a sheer abuse of process of law and misuse of provisions enacted for the protection of women. It sought the woman's response after directing separate proceedings against her under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Sections 340 and 195 (1) (b). The next hearing is scheduled on June 30. Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC deals with offences against public justice and offences relating to documents produced in court whereas Section 340 outlines the procedure when a court believes that an inquiry should be made into an offence related to proceedings in that court.
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court initiates action against woman for hiding facts over divorce
New Delhi, A Delhi court has initiated criminal proceedings against a woman for allegedly concealing the fact that she received ₹10 lakh during her divorce settlement and said any misuse of the law meant for women's protection had to be nipped in the bud. Judicial Magistrate Anam Rais Khan was hearing a criminal complaint case filed by the woman. In an order dated April 25, made available recently, the court said, "Complainant has admitted that all the disputes between the parties were already settled before the family court of southeast district and the first motion of divorce by mutual consent was passed on November 22, 2022, pursuant to which, the complainant received a sum of ₹10 lakh, out of the total settlement amount of ₹19 lakh…" The estranged husband was willing to pay the outstanding amount, but these crucial facts were concealed by the complainant in the present petition, it noted. "Complainant has also admitted to having already utilised the part-settlement amount of ₹10 lakh and deliberately did not appear for recording of her statement for the second motion of divorce by mutual consent before the family court," the court said. The woman, the court said, derived benefit from the settlement with the estranged husband without honouring the terms of the settlement. "In a nutshell, respondent 1 , despite paying ₹10 lakh, is standing on the same footing, and the present case was filed after receiving the said amount," the order said. The verdict found a prima facie violation of the family court's order and the undertaking given by the woman on oath to the family court aside from an "attempt to deceive the present court" by filing the petition without mentioning the settlement arrived at. "This also amounts to filing of false affidavit before this court by active concealment of material facts and is a sheer abuse of process of law and misuse of provisions enacted for the protection of women. Such conduct cannot be left unchecked and has to be nipped in the bud," the court said. Directing that separate proceedings be initiated against her under Code of Criminal Procedure Sections 340 and 195 , the court sought her response. Section 195 of the CrPC deals with offences against public justice and offences relating to documents produced in court whereas Section 340 outlines the procedure when a court believes that an inquiry should be made into an offence related to proceedings in that court. The court then posted the matter on June 30.
New Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
2018 defamation case: Rahul Gandhi moves Jharkhand HC against non-bailable arrest warrant
RANCHI: Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi, has approached the Jharkhand High Court, challenging the non-bailable warrant issued against him by a Special MP-MLA Court in Chaibasa. Gandhi, in his petition, has requested the court to quash the warrant issued against him. On May 22, 2025, a Chaibasa court issued the non-bailable warrant, directing him to appear in person on June 26. Earlier, his counsel had filed an application under Section 205 of the CrPC seeking exemption from personal appearance, but the court rejected the plea and insisted on his presence. After the rejection, Gandhi has now moved the High Court against the lower court's order. According to the petition, he has already filed a plea in the Jharkhand High Court seeking exemption from appearance, which is still pending. In such a situation, the issuance of a non-bailable warrant by the Chaibasa court is "unfair", the petition claims. Rahul Gandhi had reportedly made sharp remarks against the BJP, allegedly calling its leaders 'murderers' and 'liars' during a speech on March 18, 2018, at the AICC Plenary Session in New Delhi. 'The people of this country will never accept a lying Bhartiya Janata Party leadership drunk with power because they know what the BJP is designed for.' Further, he said, 'They will accept a man accused of murder as the President of BJP, but the people will never accept the same in the Congress Party,' he was said to have remarked. Hurt by these remarks, BJP worker Pratap Kumar filed a complaint at the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Chaibasa on July 9, 2018. The court took cognizance of the matter in February 2022 and issued summons to Gandhi, which were received by his office. After initial hearings and testimonies, the case was transferred to the Special MP-MLA Court in Ranchi in February 2020 on the orders of the Jharkhand High Court. It was later sent back to the MP-MLA Court in Chaibasa as per another High Court order.
Hans India
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
LoP Rahul Gandhi moves Jharkhand HC to quash Non-Bailable Warrant issued by Chaibasa court
Ranchi: Congress MP and Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi has approached the Jharkhand High Court seeking cancellation of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against him by the MP-MLA special court in Chaibasa in connection with a 2018 case over alleged derogatory remarks against then BJP National President Amit Shah. The NBW was issued on May 22 after LoP Rahul Gandhi failed to respond to earlier court summonses. The Chaibasa court has directed him to appear in person on June 26. LoP Gandhi's legal counsel has argued in the High Court that a petition filed under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) -- which seeks exemption from personal appearance in court -- is still pending before the same court. Therefore, the issuance of a NBW while the exemption plea remains unheard is premature and legally inappropriate, the petition contended. The case stems from a complaint filed by Chaibasa resident Pratap Katiyar on July 9, 2018. According to the complaint, Gandhi allegedly stated during a Congress session that, "No murderer can become the national president in the Congress. Congressmen cannot accept a murderer as the national president -- this is possible only in the BJP." The remark was seen as a veiled reference to Amit Shah, who at the time was the BJP's National President. In response to the complaint, the Chaibasa court had initially issued a bailable warrant in April 2022. However, LoP Gandhi reportedly did not respond to the summonses. Subsequently, a NBW was issued in February 2024. His legal team filed an application seeking an exemption from personal appearance, which was rejected by the trial court. Following this, Rahul Gandhi had moved the Jharkhand High Court, which granted him temporary relief. But with the matter still pending, the lower court's latest issuance of a non-bailable warrant prompted the LoP to file a fresh petition in the High Court.
News18
9 hours ago
- News18
Supreme Court Clears Teacher Of Abetment Charge, Says ‘Scolding Alone Not Suicide Trigger'
Last Updated: The case arose from an FIR registered by the CBCID under Sections 306 IPC and 174 CrPC, after a student allegedly took his life by hanging himself in a hostel room in 2014. In relief to a school correspondent in Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court has quashed charges framed against him under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide) in connection with the suicide of a hostel student in 2014. The Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the appeal filed by the accused against the order of the Madras High Court dated June 14, 2024, which had rejected his plea for discharge. The Court observed, 'No normal person could have imagined that a scolding, that too based on a complaint by a student, would result in such tragedy due to the student so scolded taking his own life…such scolding was the least, a correspondent was required to do, to ensure that the complaint made against the deceased by another student was taken note of and remedial measures effected." The case arose from an FIR registered by the CBCID under Sections 306 IPC and 174 CrPC, after a student allegedly took his life by hanging himself in a hostel room. The charge sheet, however, only included the charge under Section 306 IPC. According to the Appellant, who served as the correspondent of the school and was in charge of its operations, he had merely reprimanded the student after receiving a complaint from another student. The appellant submitted that the reprimand was issued in his capacity as a guardian and authority figure, to ensure discipline and order in the hostel premises. It was contended that there was no personal enmity, and that the appellant could not have foreseen that a mere scolding would lead the student to take such an extreme step. The appellant argued that there was no criminal intent or mens rea, an essential ingredient for invoking Section 306 IPC. Notably, the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by AAG Amit Anand Tiwari, conceded that there appeared to be no justifiable ground to prosecute the appellant under Section 306 IPC. The complainant, who is also the father of the deceased, did not appear before the Court despite valid service of notice. Taking note of the facts and submissions, the Court held that no ordinary person in the appellant's position could have anticipated such a tragic outcome from a verbal reprimand based on a peer complaint. The Court emphasized that in the absence of criminal intent, no offence under Section 306 IPC was made out. 'In the considered opinion of this Court, under such admitted factual position, no mens rea can be attributed to the appellant, much less with regard to abetment of suicide committed by the deceased," the Bench held. Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the order framing charges. The appellant has been discharged from the case, bringing an end to the criminal proceedings initiated against him. All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.
