Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

Threats judge's wife by lawyer, formation of SIT to probe FIR: SC

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court ordered the Director General of Police in Uttar Pradesh to form a Special Investigation Team to investigate a FIR filed by the wife of an Additional District Judge alleging a threat by a Lawyer.

The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka ordered that the petitioner not be arrested for two weeks so that he may apply for pre-arrest bail before the proper forum.

In this instance, the wife of a Judicial Officer filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner (Amit Kumar Jain), alleging that he was threatening her. She sought appropriate protection for her family, citing multiple instances of threats.

The petitioner was consequently charged under Sections 452, 387, 353, 506, and 507 of the Indian Penal Code. Before the Allahabad High Court, he contested the FIR on the grounds that the Judicial Officer and his wife were complicit in the crime.

The Allahabad High Court denied Amit Kumar Jain's petition to transfer the case to another investigating agency, stating that the allegations were neither specific nor substantiated, and that there was no reason to question the impartiality of the Investigating Officer.

The Supreme Court ordered SSP to oversee the investigation into this matter.

The Petitioner had filed a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court's ruling.

Counsel for Ms. Preetika Dwivedi requested two weeks to file a counter-affidavit and an Action Taken Report.

To ensure that F.I.R. is investigated in a fair, impartial, and dispassionate manner, the Supreme Court ordered the Director General of Police of Uttar Pradesh to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a directly recruited IPS Officer and consisting of two additional Members with the ranks of Dy. SP and Inspector.

In light of the preceding, the Supreme Court scheduled the case for 22 August 2022.

D.D:01-08-2022

Amit Kumar Jain  Versus State Of U.P. & Ors.

Latest Legal News