Latest news with #FirstInformationReport
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
CJI Gavai upset after lawyer drops Justice from Justice Varma: ‘Is he your friend?'
Chief Justice of India B R Gavai Monday took exception to a petitioner addressing Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma, caught in a controversy following the discovery of unaccounted money from his official residence, by his last name. CJI Gavai gave vent to his displeasure as Advocate Mathews J Nedumpara filed a plea for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Justice Varma over the cash recovery. Seeking urgent hearing of his plea, Nedumpara said in front of the bench, also comprising Justice Vinod Chandran, 'This is the third writ petition which I am filing.' 'If you want it to be dismissed right now, I will dismiss it right now,' CJI Gavai said. However, Nedumpara said, 'It is impossible to be dismissed. FIR has to be registered.' Apparently referring to Justice Varma's petition challenging the report of the in-house inquiry committee, which confirmed the fact of recovery of money, he said, 'Now Varma seems to be asking for that only. There has to be an FIR, there has to be an investigation.' The petitioner, referring to Justice Varma as only Varma, did not go down well with CJI Gavai. 'Is he your friend? He is still Justice Verma. How do you address him? Have some decorum in the court. You are referring to a learned judge… He is still a judge of the Court,' said CJI Gavai. Nedumpara said, 'I don't think that greatness can apply to him. Matter has to be listed.' The CJI cautioned him, 'Don't dictate to the Court what has to be done.' 'No, I am only requesting,' responded Nedumpara.
News18
5 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
How Many Times Do We Need To Remind HCs What Constitutes Cheating, Asks SC
The SC bench said, "We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order." The Supreme Court recently expressed anguish by asking as to how many times do the High Courts need to be reminded of the constituents of the offence of cheating. The SC said that there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took a strong exception to an Allahabad High Court's order of March 7, which directed petitioner Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R Singh, who sought quashing of a First Information Report (FIR), to go for mediation and simultaneously also ordered him to hand over a demand draft of Rs 25,00,000 for the purpose of mediation to the original complainant. Holding that the plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality, the bench said, 'We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order." The court noted the High Court first directed the appellant to pay Rs 25,00,000 to the respondent No.4 and thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement. 'That's not what is expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR or any other criminal proceedings," the bench said. 'What is expected of the High Court is to look into the averments and the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other material on record, if any," the bench added. 'The High Court seems to have forgotten the well-settled principles as enunciated in the decision of this Court in the 'State of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal & Others" reported in 1992," the bench said. In its order, the court pointed out, it called upon the counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 to make it understand in what manner the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 'We also called upon the counsel to make us understand in what manner his client could be said to have been cheated so as to constitute the offence of cheating. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties," the bench said. The respondent No.4 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant – herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the respondent No.4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant, the bench asked. Having gone through the facts of the matter, the bench pointed out, the entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of 'Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2024). In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. The court noted, it appears that this very decision was relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. 'However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs 25,00,000 to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent," the bench said. 'We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise," the bench asked. The court emphasised the High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. 'Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016," the bench said. The court asked as to why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. The bench said it also enquired with the counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. 'It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law," the bench underscored. The court said it could have said many things but it refrained from observing anything further. 'If the respondent No.4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings," the court held. The court quashed the impugned FIR and clarified that it shall be open for the respondent No.4 to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for the recovery of the alleged amount due and payable to him. The First Information Report was registered on January 09 under Sections 60(b), 316(2) and 318(2) of B.N.S., 2023, with P.S. Hariparwat, District Agra. The petitioner submitted that he is a co-founder and production head of M/s Karma Media and Entertainment LLP, which is primarily engaged in production of motion picture. The respondent no.4 (informant) is running the business under the name and style of M/s Polaroid Media, which is engaged in the business of financing, coproduction and co-financing media projects. He claimed the informant has lodged the impugned FIR by dragging a civil dispute inter-se the parties into criminal case. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 21, 2025, 16:36 IST News india How Many Times Do We Need To Remind HCs What Constitutes Cheating, Asks SC 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.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court non-committal about early hearing of plea to register an FIR in Justice Yashwant Varma incident
The Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Monday (July 21, 2025) asked a petitioner seeking an urgent hearing of a plea to register a First Information Report (FIR) on allegations regarding the discovery of burnt cash from the residential premises of High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, whether he wanted his petition to be dismissed now. The CJI neither committed to an early hearing nor visibly appeared in court to outright dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner-advocate Mathews Nedumpara. The lawyer insisted that an FIR 'has to be registered'. In his petition, the third in a series, the lawyer criticised the Centre for not initiating 'an effective and meaningful investigation' into the allegations. An in-house inquiry committee had submitted a confidential report on the alleged incident in early May, affirming the presence of cash and recommending the removal of Justice Varma from office. The then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna, had forwarded the report to the President and the Prime Minister to commence the processes of a removal motion in the Parliament. Justice Varma has himself approached the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of the in-house procedure and the recommendation for his removal from office. Mr. Nedumpara's petition has coincided with both Justice Varma approaching the apex court and the opening of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. In his first petition, the court had asked Mr. Nedumpara to wait for the in-house inquiry report. 'After the committee had submitted its report, no FIR was registered. The petitioner filed yet another writ petition and was asked by the court to approach the President and the Prime Minister… To the petitioner's knowledge, no FIR has been registered till date,' the petitioner-advocate had submitted.
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court orders CBI probe in Kupwara custodial torture case, directs Rs 50-lakh compensation to constable
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged custodial torture of a police constable at the Joint Interrogation Centre in Jammu and Kashmir's Kupwara in February 2023. A bench of Justices Vikaram Nath and Sandeep Mehta also ordered that the police officers responsible should be arrested within a month. The court also ordered the payment of Rs 50 lakh in compensation to the police constable, Khursheed Ahmed Chauhan. It also quashed an attempt-to-suicide case registered against Chauhan under Indian Penal Code section 309. Chauhan moved the Supreme Court after the Jammu and Kashmir High Court refused to quash the First Information Report (FIR) in the attempt-to-suicide case. He alleged that he was subjected to abject torture during illegal detention from February 20 to 26, 2023, at the interrogation centre. Allowing his appeal, the Supreme Court said that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would be a travesty of justice. Directing a CBI inquiry into the allegations of torture, the Supreme Court also called for an investigation into 'systemic issues' prevailing at the interrogation centre in Kupwara to assess whether structural or institutional failings enabled a climate of impunity that led to the alleged abuse. The bench directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to complete the investigation within three months from the date of the registration of an FIR.
News18
9 hours ago
- Politics
- News18
'Still A Judge': CJI Gavai Raps Advocate For Not Saying 'Justice' Yashwant Varma
Last Updated: CJI BR Gavai reprimanded advocate Mathews J Nedumpara for referring to Justice Yashwant Varma as only 'Varma' amid a case seeking an FIR against him. Chief Justice of India BR Gavai on Monday objected to advocate Mathews J Nedumpara addressing Justice Yashwant Varma, who is caught up in the controversy related to the discovery of cash notes at his official residence, as only 'Varma". CJI Gavai argued that Justice Varma was still a judge of the High Court, and that he had to be addressed as a 'Justice." The development came after Nedumpara mentioned an urgent listing writ petition, seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Justice Varma. 'This is the third writ petition," Nedumpara said. 'You want it to be dismissed right now?" CJI Gavai asked in response. 'It is impossible to be dismissed. FIR has to be registered. Now Varma seems to be asking for that only. There has to be an FIR, an investigation," Nedumpara responded, referring to the writ petition filed by Justice Varma himself challenging the in-house proceedings. 'Is he your friend? He is still Justice Verma. How do you address him? Have some decorum. You are referring to a learned judge. He is still a judge of the court," CJI Gavai said, as he corrected Nedumpara. 'I don't think that greatness can apply to him. Matter has to be listed," Nedumpara responded. 'Don't dictate to the court," CJI Gavai shot back. In March this year, Nedumpara had filed a first writ petition, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court the same month, observing that the in-house inquiry proceedings were going on. He later filed another writ petition, after the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna forwarded the in-house inquiry report to the President and the Prime Minister. In May, the Supreme Court disposed of the said writ petition, asking Nedumpara to first approach the central government authorities for the FIR. A fire incident at Justice Varma's Lutyens' Delhi residence in March, when he was a judge of the Delhi High Court, had led to the discovery of sacks of half-burnt cash in the outhouse. Justice Varma was subsequently repatriated to the Allahabad High Court, but no judicial work was assigned to him. Though Justice Varma denied any wrongdoing, the inquiry panel has concluded that the judge and his family members had covert or active control over the storeroom, where the cash was found, proving his misconduct serious enough to seek his removal. view comments 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.
