SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Even Relative have No Right To Touch Body of Girl's consent: Mumbai court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


A court in Mulund, Mumbai, recently sentenced a 43-year-old man to one month in jail and a 1,000 fine for holding his minor cousin's hand without her consent and proposing marriage [The State of Maharashtra vs Manikumar Wilson Nadar].

Metropolitan Magistrate RD Dange stated that the accused's relationship to the victim did not give him permission to touch her without her consent.

"In the present case, PW1 testified that the defendant's actions made her feel insulted and ashamed. Even though the accused is PW1's relative, he had no right to touch her without her consent "the Judge ruled.

In February 2009, when she was in ninth grade, the minor filed a complaint at the Bhandup police station under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing harm) and 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She claimed that while she was walking home from school, her cousin grabbed her hand, proposed marriage, and invited her to his home.

Regarding the violation of Section 354, the court found the prosecution witnesses' testimony credible and convicted the defendant.

However, the defendant was acquitted of the Section 323 offence because the court did not believe the complainant and her sister's testimony that the defendant had struck the victim.

The defendant pleaded for clemency and asked to be released on a bond of good behaviour under the Probation of Offenders Act.

The court determined that the case did not qualify for the benefits of the Probation of Offenders Act due to the nature of the offence, the victim's age, and the ongoing nature of the other complaints.

The State of Maharashtra

versus

Manikumar Wilson Nadar

 

 

 

Latest Legal News