SuoMotto - Mediation & Counselling’s Post

In Dinesh Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the Supreme Court quashed an FIR against the appellants, terming the case a malicious prosecution and imposed a ₹25 lakh fine on the complainant for forum shopping and abusing judicial processes. The case involved an attempt to convert a purely civil and commercial dispute into a criminal matter by filing an FIR in a jurisdiction where none of the parties resided or conducted business. The complainant, after losing a merger-related case in the Delhi High Court, lodged a frivolous criminal complaint with misleading information. The Court observed: Such misuse overburdens the criminal justice system and undermines public trust in the judiciary. Legal remedies must not be used for harassment or vengeance. This landmark ruling sends a strong message against abuse of judicial mechanisms and highlights the importance of fairness in litigation. #SupremeCourt #LegalUpdates #AbuseOfProcess #Learning #Advocate_Rahul_Dwivedi

Judicial Accountability: The Case of K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India In the landmark 1991 judgment of K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India set a crucial precedent for balancing judicial independence and accountability. ♦ Background: The case involved K. Veeraswami, the former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, who was accused of amassing disproportionate assets. This raised the question: Can a judge of the higher judiciary be prosecuted under criminal law? ♦ Key Points to be noticed : 🔹No immunity from criminal prosecution: Judges are not above the law. If a serious criminal charge is made, the judiciary must be held accountable, just like any other public servant. 🔹Approval from the Chief Justice of India (CJI): To prevent frivolous or malicious complaints, the Court ruled that an FIR or investigation against a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court can only be initiated with the CJI's prior approval. 🔹Judicial Independence: While this protection is essential to safeguard the judiciary from undue influence, it ensures that genuine complaints are not ignored, striking a balance between protecting judges and ensuring accountability. This case highlights the importance of holding the judiciary accountable while maintaining its independence. #JudicialAccountability #RuleOfLaw #Law #Legal #LegalNews #KVeeraswamiCase #JudicialIndependence #LegalReform #IndianJudiciary #SupremeCourt #TransparencyInJustice

In Dinesh Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the Supreme Court quashed an FIR against the appellants, terming the case a malicious prosecution and imposed a ₹25 lakh fine on the complainant for forum shopping and abusing judicial processes. The case involved an attempt to convert a purely civil and commercial dispute into a criminal matter by filing an FIR in a jurisdiction where none of the parties resided or conducted business. The complainant, after losing a merger-related case in the Delhi High Court, lodged a frivolous criminal complaint with misleading information. The Court observed: Such misuse overburdens the criminal justice system and undermines public trust in the judiciary. Legal remedies must not be used for harassment or vengeance. This landmark ruling sends a strong message against abuse of judicial mechanisms and highlights the importance of fairness in litigation. #SupremeCourt #LegalUpdates #AbuseOfProcess #ForumShopping #JusticeSystem #AnsariSolicitorFirm

🔊 Featured in The Economic Times! I had the opportunity to share my legal insights on the recent Supreme Court order imposing conditions on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal while granting him bail. It’s always a privilege to contribute to discussions on landmark rulings that shape our legal landscape. 📰 Read the full article in the Economic Times for a detailed analysis. #LegalInsights #SupremeCourt #ArvindKejriwal #AeddhaasLegal #EconomicTimes #BailConditions #LawAndJustice

Bombay High Court Refers Interpretation of Section 50 Cr.P.C. to Larger Bench, Emphasizing the Need for Clarity on Whether Grounds of Arrest Must Be Communicated in Writing or Oral Communication Suffices Court’s Decision The Bombay High Court ruled that the issues concerning the interpretation of Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), particularly whether the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing, require serious consideration by a Larger Bench. The court highlighted a lack of uniformity and clarity in the application of these provisions by investigating agencies, leading to potential violations of fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The court observed that multiple writ petitions had been filed on similar grounds, alleging illegal detention due to non-compliance with Cr.P.C. provisions. Given the conflicting decisions by coordinate benches on the matter, the High Court deemed it necessary to refer the issue to a Larger Bench for authoritative determination. Court’s Reasoning The absence of a uniform approach across various courts in Maharashtra made it imperative for a Larger Bench to decide on the correct interpretation. Procedural lapses cannot be ignored, but the gravity of offenses and surrounding circumstances must also be weighed. Whether oral communication of grounds is sufficient or mandatory written notice is required must be resolved conclusively. Conclusion The High Court referred the issue to a Larger Bench for a binding decision on whether failure to provide written grounds of arrest automatically invalidates detention. The balance between procedural compliance and public safety in criminal investigations will be addressed in the upcoming Larger Bench ruling. #BombayHighCourt #CriminalLaw #Section50CrPC #DueProcess #JudicialReview #FundamentalRights #LegalPrecedent #RuleOfLaw #CaseLaw #LegalUpdates

The Delhi High Court dismisses a PIL seeking extraordinary interim bail for Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in all criminal cases against him, citing that no one is above the law. The petitioner, a law student, faces a cost of Rs 75,000 for filing the petition, with the court emphasizing that Kejriwal is in judicial custody as per court orders. Despite arguments about the public's concerns, the court maintains that Kejriwal has access to legal recourse and rejects the plea, highlighting the importance of upholding the principle of equality and the rule of law. #EqualityBeforeLaw #LegalRecourse #LocusStandi #LawAndOrder #Judiciary #LegalSystem #IndianPolitics #HighCourtDecision #PublicInterestLitigation #LegalProceedings #JudicialOrders #JudicialPrinciples #LegalJustice #hindustanherald

The Delhi High Court recently deprecated the practice of blaming lawyers alone for delays by litigants in approaching courts for legal remedies [Rahul Mavai vs Union Of India & Ors.]. A Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta emphasised that litigants too have a duty to pursue their cases diligently. "We emphatically disapprove of this practice of shifting, to the shoulders of the Counsel, the negligence in approaching the Court. It is easy, in such circumstances, to file a complaint before the Bar Council and seek to explain away the delay. We deprecate this. A litigant does not abandon all responsibility to keep track of a matter, once it is entrusted to Counsel," the Court said. #DelhiHighCourt #LitigantsResponsibility #LegalDelays #LawyerBlame #Litigation #BarCouncil

The Supreme Court of India took a strong stance against frivolous litigation, imposing ₹25,000 costs on a litigant for challenging an adjournment order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Vishal Aggarwal vs Ritu Sharma. The bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, remarked, "We cannot let you go like this. How can you file this?"—underscoring the importance of maintaining the integrity of court procedures and the responsibility of litigants to respect the judicial process. This move highlights the Court's firm approach to discourage unnecessary delays and frivolous appeals, which can undermine the efficiency of the legal system. It serves as a reminder that judicial time and resources should not be misused. #SupremeCourt #IndianJudiciary #LegalProfession #Litigation #CourtOrder #FrivolousLitigation #LegalCosts #JudicialIntegrity #LawAndJustice #UttarakhandHighCourt #CourtProcedures #LegalReform

Arrest Of Man For Sharing Edited Video Of CM Fadnavis Illegal: Court Orders Immediate Release A Mumbai court has declared the arrest of Varad Tukaram Kanki for sharing an edited video of Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis as illegal. The court found that the police failed to inform Kanki of the grounds of his arrest, violating legal procedures. The video, which was edited to misrepresent Fadnavis's speech, went viral on social media. The court ordered Kanki's immediate release and issued a show-cause notice to the investigating officer for not following proper arrest protocols. ⚖️ Credits: Law Trend Read More - https://lnkd.in/dcb8t4sW #SupremeCourt #Fadnavis #Justice #Law #LegalNews #CourtRuling #India #Judiciary #LegalUpdates #mdlegal #mumbailawfirm #legalnews #advmahavirdeshlahra #mdlegal #mdlegalllp #mumbailawfirm #lawupdates #supremecourt #highcourt

Applicability of New Criminal Laws, BNS, BNSS and BSA 2023: While observing that the enforcement of the new criminal laws and procedure was a significant milestone in the administration of justice in India, Hon’ble Punjab &Haryana High Court clarified and concluded that: - Any appeal/application/revision/petition filed on or after July 1, 2024 under the provisions of CrPC, 1973 is non-maintainable and would deserve dismissal/rejection. - In case any appeal/application/revision/petition is filed upto June 30, 2024, but there is a defect and such defect is cured/removed on or after July 1, such appeal/application/revision/petition shall be deemed to have been validly filed/instituted on or after July 1 and, therefore, would be non-maintainable. - Section 531 of BNSS shall apply to “revision”,“petition” as also “petition of complaint” (complaint before magistrate) with the same vigour as it is statutorily mandated to apply to “appeal/application/trial/inquiry or investigation” in terms of Section 531 of BNSS. #law #legal #criminallaw #newlaw #act #newact #highcourt #delhi #delhihighcourt #lawfirm #lawislife #livelawupdates #barandbench #lawislife #advocate #parliament #bns2023 #BNSS2023 #fortunelegal www.fortunelegal.in Email: info@fortunelegal.in FortuneLegal Advocates https://lnkd.in/gMvT_YFC