#criminal revision

The Calcutta High Court quashed lower maintenance orders, ruling that any award under the PWDV Act must be grounded in sworn affidavits of both parties’ assets and liabilities. The decision forces litigants in domestic violence cases to furnish full financial disclosures before maintenance can be granted, impacting spouses and children seeking support.

The Calcutta High Court held that generalized allegations without specific instances cannot sustain a Section 498A IPC prosecution and that relatives living separately cannot be implicated absent concrete evidence. The ruling clarifies the evidentiary threshold for matrimonial cruelty and shields distant family members from baseless implications.

The Chhattisgarh HC held that denying interim custody of a seized vehicle solely because the offence is grave violates BNSS 497(1). It ordered police to release the Tata Safari to the registered owner, ruling that custody cannot be withheld on mere speculation of misuse.

Uttarakhand HC held that a substantive residence, even if temporary, satisfies territorial jurisdiction under Section 126(1) CrPC for Section 125 maintenance claims, overturning the Family Court, Nainital’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Calcutta HC affirmed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 for a major son with 70% disability, ruling that the father's obligation under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC does not cease on attaining majority. The decision reinforces the statutory right of disabled adult children to support, impacting families across West Bengal.

A newspaper proprietor merely as owner/shareholder cannot be prosecuted for criminal defamation under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the Gauhati HC held, shielding passive owners from liability for content they did not create.

Section 348 BNSS allows summoning any witness whose evidence is essential for a just decision, even if not in charge-sheet, Uttarakhand HC held. It overturned the trial court’s refusal and ordered production of Malkhana Moharrir and original register.

The MPHC discharged parents-in-law, holding that omnibus allegations in dowry cases cannot sustain a prima facie case against relatives without specific involvement. This shields kin from generic accusations while upholding husband’s liability where allegations are specific.

A trial court may recall a witness under Section 311 CrPC when the evidence is essential and the grounds differ from an earlier dismissal, the Telangana HC held, imposing Rs.5,000 costs to ensure a fair trial.

The Calcutta High Court quashed NI Act proceedings against whole-time directors who were not signatories to the dishonoured cheques, ruling that vicarious liability under Section 141 requires specific averments linking the director to the transaction. The decision clarifies that a mere corporate role is insufficient to attract liability, affecting directors in cheque bounce disputes.

The Gauhati HC held that rejecting a Section 311 CrPC witness-summoning petition may be an intermediate order if it affects the final judgment, allowing a Section 397 CrPC revision to challenge such denial of vital witness evidence.

The court ruled that offences under the Public Gambling Act do not constitute 'gang' activity under the U.P. Gangsters Act, and a vehicle purchased before any FIR was registered cannot be confiscated merely because loan EMIs were paid post-FIR without concrete evidence linking those payments to criminal proceeds. This decision protects pre-acquisition assets from speculative attachment under the Act.

The Calcutta High Court quashed a Section 498A complaint against parents-in-law, ruling it was a mala fide counterblast to an eviction order passed under the Senior Citizens Act. The court held that omnibus allegations lacking specific dates or overt acts constitute an abuse of process, shielding elderly litigants from retaliatory criminal proceedings.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the FIR, ruling that Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita demands a direct causal link between the accused’s act and the victim’s death. A contractor’s failure to provide safety equipment alone, without proof that the omission caused the fatality, does not attract criminal liability. The decision narrows the reach of criminal negligence provisions for employers and contractors across India.

Uttarakhand HC held that the 20% fine-deposit under Section 148 NI Act may be lowered to Rs 10,000 for appellants facing extreme financial hardship. The reduced deposit is conditioned on the appeal being heard on its merits, creating discretionary relief for indigent defendants.