Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Genesis of Dispute is Civil Dispute Relating to Sale of Property – Delhi High Court Grants Bail in Alleged Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted bail to Priyanka Arora and Kapil Dev Arora in the case involving alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 506/509/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court scrutinized the invocation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in a dispute primarily arising out of a property sale agreement.

The appellants were accused of harassing and threatening the complainant, Ms. ‘C’, including an attempt to hit her with a car. An earlier complaint by Ms. ‘C’ had led to the registration of FIR No. 460/2022 under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act. The current case was registered following an incident on October 25, 2023, and subsequent registration of FIR No. 489/2023.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta noted the primary issue stemmed from a civil dispute over property sale. The court observed that the allegations in the FIR had inconsistencies and the CCTV footage did not conclusively support the prosecution’s claims. The judge remarked, “Appellants could not have contemplated that the complainant would also be passing the street while approaching from opposite direction.” The reliance on the CCTV footage was deemed insufficient to deny bail.

The judgment underscored the misuse of stringent laws like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in civil disputes. It highlighted the importance of analyzing the genesis of a dispute before invoking such special laws.

The High Court set aside the order of the learned ASJ that declined bail to the appellants. It granted them bail, subject to certain conditions, emphasizing that the appellants are not required for custodial investigation and noting the civil nature of the genesis of the dispute.

Date of Decision: 12th February 2024

PRIYANKA ARORA VS STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

 

Latest Legal News