Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Sec.353, 506(503) of I.P.C. - Misbehavior of Traffic Police Inspector with out registering any complaint or FIR against the accused in police station - posted comments about his misbehavior- not amounts to obstruction of official duty and also criminal intimidation - the appellants posted comments on the Bangalore Traffic Police Facebook page, accusing Mr. Kasim of his misbehavior and also forwarded an email complaining about the harassment meted out to them at the hands of the Respondent Police Inspector. - As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.- 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Sec.353, 506(503) of I.P.C. - Misbehavior of Traffic Police Inspector with out registering any complaint or FIR against the accused in police station - posted comments about his misbehavior- not amounts to obstruction of official duty and also criminal intimidation - the appellants posted comments on the Bangalore Traffic Police Facebook page, accusing Mr. Kasim of his misbehavior and also forwarded an email complaining about the harassment meted out to them at the hands of the Respondent Police Inspector. - As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.- 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS


The legal position is well-settled that when a  prosecution
at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied  by  the
Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima  facie,
establish the offence. 
 It is also for the Court to take into  consideration
any special features which appear in a particular case to  consider  whether
it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution  to
continue.  
Where,  in the opinion of the Court,   the  chances  of  ultimate
conviction is bleak and  no  useful  purpose  is  likely  to  be  served  by
allowing a criminal  prosecution  to  continue,  the  Court  may  quash  the
proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. -

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS