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

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

07 May 2024 8:19 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