Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

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