Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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