Latest news with #JCDoshi
Indian Express
31-07-2025
- Indian Express
‘Adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error': Gujarat HC quashes 2010 rape FIR against minor; quotes from SC judgment
Quoting from a 1977 Supreme Court judgment, which held that 'adult intent, automatically attributed to infant, is itself an adult error', the Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR lodged in Rajkot in 2010 against a then minor for alleged rape. The order of Justice J C Doshi of the Gujarat HC on Wednesday considered the submission of the advocate of the petitioner that laid emphasis on Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which stated that 'nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.' The accused was aged under 11 years in 2010. Stating that the Inspector of the Rajkot police station 'must not have the knowledge of Section 83 of the IPC', the HC said that the petition 'deserves consideration', especially since it is not the case of the prosecution that 'forensic test was carried out at the relevant time, that whether the petitioner was, though 11 years old at the time of alleged incident, mature enough to understand the consequences of the alleged act.' The HC order, while citing relevant case laws of the Supreme Court, stated, 'According to this Court, the PI, Bhaktinagar Police Station, must not have knowledge of section 83 of the IPC or (that) filing of FIR is in defiance of section 83 of the IPC. Under the circumstances, present petition requires consideration.' The court also directed the investigating officer concerned as well as the trial court to remove and delete the name of the petitioner from the police records, investigation papers as well as the Registry to protect his identity. The advocate appearing for the minor had submitted to the court that at the time of the incident, the petitioner was ten-and-a-half years old and therefore, 'cannot be treated as accused' under Section 83 of the IPC on the ground of his 'lack of majority'. The petitioner's advocate also submitted that 'no forensic intervention was carried out to establish that he was major (by age) to understand the offence…' The counsel appearing for the complainant of the FIR had submitted that the allegations were 'of serious nature and whether the petitioner is mature or understanding (of) the seriousness of the offence can be tested during trial and the FIR cannot be quashed on the touchstone of reading section 83 of the IPC'. The 2010 FIR was lodged against the minor under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 354 (criminal force against woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 114 (abettor present when offence is committed) .
Time of India
12-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Gujarat high court quashes criminal complaint against company for defaulting on CSR responsibilities
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat high court quashed a criminal complaint filed by the registrar of companies (ROC) against a company on charges of non-compliance with corporate social responsibility (CSR) rules, specifically for inadequate disclosure and under-expenditure on CSR activities. Acknowledging the shift in legislative approach, the HC quashed the complaint and referred the issue to the adjudicating authority to fix the penalty on the company. This decision came after the central govt in 2020 amended the Companies Act, decriminalising the offence and reducing the punishment to a fine. In this case, the ROC filed a complaint under the Companies Act in a city court in 2017 against KHS Machinery Pvt Ltd for defaulting on its CSR obligations for the financial year 2014-15. The principal district judge initiated proceedings against the company. You Can Also Check: Ahmedabad AQI | Weather in Ahmedabad | Bank Holidays in Ahmedabad | Public Holidays in Ahmedabad The company approached the HC in 2017, alleging that the ROC filed the complaint "with an ulterior motive and in abuse of the process of law". The company contended that it constituted a CSR committee and framed its own CSR policy in accordance with the statutory mandate. In line with its CSR obligations, the company began spending amounts towards social causes as stipulated in its CSR policy. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Các chỉ số toàn cầu đang biến động — Đã đến lúc giao dịch! IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo All relevant disclosures were duly made in the Board of Directors' Report in compliance with Section 134(3)(o) of the Companies Act. Still, the ROC filed the complaint. The quashing petition was pending since 2017. When it came up for hearing, the company contended that the case pertained to Section 134(8) of the Companies Act and the said offence was decriminalised in 2020, with the punishment reduced to a fine. It prayed that the benefit of reduction in punishment should be given with retrospective effect. It also cited a Supreme Court order in this regard. After hearing the case, Justice J C Doshi quashed the complaint and ordered the issue to be sent to the authority concerned for fixing the penalty. The HC stated, "Evidently, the benefit of decriminalisation of the offence ought to ensure to the benefit of the petitioner, in as much as the Amendment Act passed by the central govt has decriminalised the punishment in cases pertaining to CSR violations and reduced the consequences to the imposition of a fine only. There appears to be no justifiable reason to deny the retrospective benefit of such decriminalisation to the petitioner–accused."
