Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.03 seconds)Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 352 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala vs P .I. Sunil on 8 November, 2013
16. After going through the First Information Report, it appears
that the offences under Sections 195-A, 294, 506-B and 352 of the Indian
Penal Code are registered. It is well settled that the offence under
Section 195-A of the IPC is attracted only when there is a specific threat
with an intention to compel a person to give false evidence in judicial
proceedings. Here, the case of prosecution is that the non-applicant No.2
was present in the Court to attend the civil litigation, and immediately
after the said incident, the civil proceeding was disposed of. In the case
of the State of Kerala vs. Suni @ Sunil, [(2015) 11 SCC 401], it is
clarified that Section 195-A IPC is a distinct offence dealing with witness
intimidation and is attracted only when the threat is directly linked to
influencing testimony before a Court. A core ingredient of the offence
under Section 195-A IPC is the existence of a specific threat with the
intent to compel a person to give false evidence in a judicial proceeding.
In the absence of any such allegation or material indicating an attempt to
influence testimony in this manner, the essential ingredients of the said
offence are not satisfied. Accordingly, Section 195-A IPC is not attracted
to the facts of the present case.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
7 apl.1874.25-Final.odt
abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The present
case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992
Supp. (1) SCC 335], has laid down illustrative categories where quashing
is justified, including where the allegations do not constitute any offence,
are inherently improbable, or are manifestly attended with mala fide
intention; in brief, the ratio is that criminal proceedings can be quashed
at the threshold to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends
of justice. The present case clearly falls within such categories, as the
proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to harass
the Applicants. As no offence is made out against these applicants, they
prayed to quash and set aside the First Information Report and Charge-
sheet registered against these applicants.
Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 8 August, 2023
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., [2023 (20) SCC 194], has categorically held
that mere threats for withdrawal of proceedings or settlement of disputes
do not attract Section 195-A IPC, and in brief, the ratio is that pressure to
compromise cannot be equated with compelling false evidence. Thus, in
the absence of such specific intent, the invocation of Section 195-A IPC is
wholly misconceived.
N. S. Madhanagopal vs K . Lalitha on 10 October, 2022
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S. Madhanagopal vs. K.
Lalitha, [(2022) 17 SCC 818], has held that mere abusive or insulting
language does not amount to obscenity unless it has a sexual or prurient
element and affects public morality; in brief, the Court ruled that verbal
altercations without obscenity and public impact do not fall within
Section 294 IPC., Likewise, in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1996)
4 SCC 17, it has been held that both obscenity and public annoyance
must co-exist, and in brief, the principle laid down is that the absence of
either ingredient is fatal to prosecution under Section 294 IPC.