Satyagraha Law Group

Know about: USTR’s Priority Watch List; Intellectual Property Rights; What are Copyrights and Related Rights; Authorizing IP rights in India etc.

Disclaimer and Notice: This website and articles contained within the site, it is hereby declared that this site and any files associated with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. This is not a solicitation. By usage of this site, you (reader / visitor), viz., intended recipient are consenting and agreeing to the terms of the website. If you are not in consent, please do not proceed any further. Specifically, no claim is made to provide any legal advice to you. For legal advice, you are advised to reach out to an appropriate lawyer. An appropriate legal course of action is contingent upon the facts of the case as well as the governing law.

Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this information or any action taken in reliance on this website is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Newsletter - Legal News - 2020-05-18 07-55-56

May-18-2020 Mon, 08:30 AM

INTERVIEW: Associate Dean Tonya Evans, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law: Lawyers aren’...

lawctopus.com

IPR Laws: United States Trade Representative places India on ‘Priority Watch List’ - iP...

Know about: Rules applicable to the substance of disputes; Rules when the place of arbitration is India; and Rules in International commercial arbitration.

Rules applicable to the Substance of Disputes in Arbitration Act - iPleaders

This article deals with the analysis of the interplay between the role CSR plays in the protection of the environment to maintain the ecological balance.

Environmental Protection and CSR - iPleaders

The article aims to give account of the whole Air India Privatization scenario along with its history and also covering the economic and legal aspects.

Privatization of Air India - Economic and Legal Implications - iPleaders

Now, feel free to share this link if you find the information useful. In case of need, you may schedule a quick meeting with the Author by clicking here.

I welcome you to my scheduling page. Please follow the instructions to add an event to my calendar.

In case of an urgent need, do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Anil (Lawyer / Advocate)

P: +91 7095 776633 (India)

P: +1 (408) 462 7600 (USA)

Case Law Analysis of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State N C T Of Delhi, 2006 (2) SCC 677

Disclaimer and Notice: This website and articles contained within the site, it is hereby declared that this site and any files associated with it are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. This is not a solicitation. By usage of this site, you (reader / visitor), viz., intended recipient are consenting and agreeing to the terms of the website. If you are not in consent, please do not proceed any further. Specifically, no claim is made to provide any legal advice to you. For legal advice, you are advised to reach out to an appropriate lawyer. An appropriate legal course of action is contingent upon the facts of the case as well as the governing law.

Daily Updates in Legal Research - 17-May-2020

May-17-2020 Sun, 10:31 AM

17-May-2020

Daily Updates in Legal Research - 17-May-2020

Everyday our team scours the web and shares the most prominent news, advancements and updates in Legal research with you. Our goal is to spread Legal knowledge to help inform, inspire and create an awareness for Delivery of Justice, Case by Case !

In the meanwhile, please enjoy reading the insights from the below mentioned.

Case
Law Analysis: K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU, 2014 (10) SCC
406

Case Law Analysis: K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU, 2014 (10) SCC 406 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ( Before : T.S. Thakur, J;...

Sun, 17 May, 2020 at 3:44 AM

Case
Law Analysis: SUDIPTA LENKA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA ORS., 2014 (11) SCC 527

Case Law Analysis: SUDIPTA LENKA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA ORS., 2014 (11) SCC 527 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ( Before : P. Sathasivam, C.J.; Ranjan ...

Sat, 16 May, 2020 at 4:49 AM

Case
Law Analysis of PROF. K.V. RAJENDRAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID SOUTH
ZONE, CHENNAI AND OTHERS, (2013) 12 SCC 480

Case Law Analysis of PROF. K.V. RAJENDRAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID SOUTH ZONE, CHENNAI AND OTHERS, (2013) 12 SCC 480 SUPREME COURT OF INDI...

Sat, 16 May, 2020 at 4:36 AM

Case
Law Analysis of STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Vs. THE COMMITTEE FOR
PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS, 2010 (3) SCC 571

Case Law Analysis of STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Vs. THE COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS, 2010 (3) SCC 571 In ...

Fri, 15 May, 2020 at 7:11 PM

Case Law Analysis of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State N C T Of Delhi, 2006 (2) SCC 677 In the matter of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State N C T Of Delhi, 2006 (2) SCC 677,...

Fri, 15 May, 2020 at 4:56 PM

Shree
Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir & Anr. Vs. The State Of Jharkhand
& Ors., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4003 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24177 of
2017)

Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir & Anr. Vs. The State Of Jharkhand & Ors., 2019 (6) SCC 777 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4003 OF 2019 (Arising ou...

Sun, 10 May, 2020 at 8:01 PM

Whether
the High Court can direct inquiry to be conducted by CBI - 2020-05-08 19-10-29

Whether the High Court can direct inquiry to be conducted by CBI - 2020-05-08 19-10-29 May-08-2020 Fri, 07:10 PM The question of law qua Whether the...

Fri, 8 May, 2020 at 9:00 PM

INDIAN
PENAL CODE SECTION 380

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 SECTION 380 Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 380 - Removal of movable property from possession of another with intention t...

Thu, 11 Aug, 2016 at 3:43 AM

IPC
SEC. 354 - ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE TO WOMAN WITH INTENT TO OUTRAGE HER
MODESTY

IPC SEC. 354 - ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE TO WOMAN WITH INTENT TO OUTRAGE HER MODESTY Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending t...

Mon, 8 Aug, 2016 at 3:08 PM

CRIMINAL
LAW - WHAT IS THE CRPC SECTION TO FILE COMPLAINT AGAINST A FALSE AFFIDAVIT

CRIMINAL LAW - WHAT IS THE CRPC SECTION TO FILE COMPLAINT AGAINST A FALSE AFFIDAVIT CRPC SEC. 340 - PROCEDURE IN CASES MENTIONED IN SECTION 195...

Wed, 10 Aug, 2016 at 7:28 PM

Pasted from <http://law.satyagraha.com/support/solutions/folders/17000079456>

Case Law Analysis of STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Vs. THE COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS, 2010 (3) SCC 571

In the matter of STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS Vs. THE COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS, 2010 (3) SCC 571, reliance was placed on a catena of Apex Court Judgments wherein it was held that :-

45. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.

46. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.

47. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and Others Vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Another, , this Court had said that an order directing an enquiry by the CBI should be passed only when the High Court, after considering the material on record, comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. We respectfully concur with these observations.

The sum and substance of the aforesaid being that the Hon'ble High Court has within its ambit to issue forth directions to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State. At the same time, a caveat was issued to the effect that such powers must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes ncessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such anorder may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.

Case Law Analysis of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State N C T Of Delhi, 2006 (2) SCC 677

In the matter of Ramesh Kumari Vs. State N C T Of Delhi, 2006 (2) SCC 677, it was held that:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 154 - Nature of provision - Provision is mandatory - The provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 154 - Registration of FIR - Powers of Police Officer to go into genuineness of credibility of information - Genuineness or otherwise of the information can only be considered after registration of the case. Genuineness or credibility of the information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 156 - Investigation by CBI - Allegations against police officials - In the present case, the learned Additional Solicitor General although vehemently opposed registration of the case but he fairly concedes that if at all the case be registered and investigation is to be carried out, the CBI would be an appropriate authority to register a case and investigate. We are also of the view that since there is allegation against the police personnel, the interest of justice would be better served if the case is registered and investigated by an independent agency like the CBI.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 154 - Cognizable offence - Mandatory provision to register a case - Pendency of contempt petition or availability of an alternative remedy is not a substitute in law not to register a case when a citizen makes a complaint of a cognizable offence against a Police Officer - In the interest of justice CBI directed to register case and complete investigation within a period of three months.

Specifically, it may be pointed out that paras nos. 3 and 4 of the Judgement are paraphrased as herein under:-

3. That the Police Officer mandatorily registers a case on a complaint of a cognizable offence by the citizen u/s 154 of the Code are no more res integra. The point of law has been set at rest by this Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the whole gamut and intricacies of the mandatory nature of Section 154 of the Code has arrived at the finding in paras 31 & 32 of the judgment as under:

31. At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered u/s 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157. (As we have proposed to make a detailed discussion about the power of a police officer in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence within the ambit of Sections 156 and 157 of the Code in the ensuing part of this judgment, we do not propose to deal with those sections in extenso in the present context). In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.

32. Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression "information" without qualifying the same as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, "reasonable complaint" and "credible information" are used. Evidently, the non-qualification of the word "information" in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, 'reasonableness' or 'credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word "information" without qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed by the Legislative Council of India read that 'every complaint or information' preferred to an officer in charge of a police station should be reduced into writing provision was subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code of 1872 (Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that 'every complaint' preferred to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing. The word 'complaint' which occurred in previous two codes of 1861 and 1872 was deleted and in that place the word 'information' was used in the Codes of 1882 and 1898 which word is now used in Sections 154, 155, 157 and 189(c) of the present Code of 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that the condition; which is since qua non for recording a first information report is that there must be an information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence.

Finally, this Court in para 33 said:

33. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.

4. The views expressed by this Court in paragraphs 31, 32 and 33 as quoted above leave no manners of doubt that the provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the concerned officer is duty bound to register the case on the basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.

Now, feel free to share this link if you find the information useful. In case of need, you may schedule a quick meeting with the Author by clicking here.

I welcome you to my scheduling page. Please follow the instructions to add an event to my calendar.

In case of an urgent need, do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Anil (Lawyer / Advocate)

P: +91 7095 776633 (India)

P: +1 (408) 462 7600 (USA)

Public Interest Litigation - Preliminary Affidavit - 2020-05-15 11-00-17

Public Interest Litigation - Preliminary Affidavit Print

Modified on: Fri, 15 May, 2020 at 10:37 AM

Public Interest Litigation - Preliminary Affidavit

The particulars of the affidavit filed by the petitioner would include, inter alia, :-

PARTICULARS OF THE CAUSE/ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE PETITION IS MADE:

The present Public Interest Litigation is filed questioning the in-action of all respondents in without following due process of law, and have tried to price gouge upon the gullible citizenry of the country.

2. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER

It is humbly submitted that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Hyderabad, Telangana, India. The petitioner is actively pursuing the rights of the public. The Petitioner neither has personal interest nor any personal gain in the present petition other than escalating the matter of grave public importance that stands at the risk of clear and present danger, unless prompt and decisive action is taken in a transparent manner.

The present Public Interest Litigation is filed for the benefit of the public and without any personal gain. I do not have any personal animosity or any other such things with any of the respondents.

3. The entire litigation costs, including the advocate’s fee and other charges are being borne by me. A through research has been conducted in the matter raised through the petition. I understood that in the course of hearing of the petition, the court may require any security to be furnished towards costs or any other charges, I shall have to comply with such requirements.

The sample affidavit and format as applicable to Petitioners In The High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana, may be downloaded from the links given below: -

S No	Filename	Filepath & Description
1	PIL D-SRINIVAS-REDDY.pdf	https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KgxzFSWfQMGzOe5i15HJFEagiJp9uyZy/view?usp=drivesdk
2	PIL D-SRINIVAS-REDDY.doc	https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l-i7SNNF8kiKRosKXXger7IZjsJ2OfS4/view?usp=drivesdk

Now, feel free to share this link if you find the information useful. In case of need, you may schedule a quick meeting with the Author by clicking here.

I welcome you to my scheduling page. Please follow the instructions to add an event to my calendar.

In case of an urgent need, do not hesitate to contact me directly.

Anil (Lawyer / Advocate)

P: +91 7095 776633 (India)

P: +1 (408) 462 7600 (USA)