On 20th of February 2025 authorities issued Section 194 and Section245 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009 show cause notices to Applicants for demolition their buildings. The petitioners responded to the notices, providing the necessary documents and raising concerns that the authorities were intent on demolishing the constructions without properly addressing their responses. The Rajasthan High Court has directed that the status quo be maintained with respect to the properties in question, ensuring that no demolition takes place until the next hearing scheduled for March 11, 2025.
The Delhi High Court, in a verdict authored by justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. ruled in favor of DDA. The court based its decision on a provision contained in Clause 24 of the agreement: no leasehold rights were given to M/s Mehta Constructions since the lease-deed itself had never actually been executed. It also believed that the rights obtained by S.G.G. Towers were simply those originally enjoyed by M/s Mehta Constructions, and those were actually zero.
A divorced woman is posted her biodata in a Whatsapp group, looking for suitable match for a remarriage. The defendant/appellant started to communicate with her and express an intention to marry. Although she resisted a reception, he sent her naked pictures and kept up doing it. He also forced her to go to his place on December 7, 2023, under the pretence that he would show her his gold ornaments there. Then, allegedly he raped her. He then told her that he no longer wanted to marry her and avoided her calls. Accusations Against the Plaintiff: Charged with cheating; being dishonestly inducible, and accepting dishonestly induced deliver of goods under Sections 417, 420 and 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Plaintiff's Defence: Claimed to have been falsely implicated. Said in his application that as a public servant, his arrest was almost certain to bring about his suspension. Decision of the court: Rejecting the anticipatory bail application. Judgment: It was observed that the IO ought to have a free hand in dealing with grave allegations. pointed out that it is not an ideal time for mere assertion of being a public servant and the consequent suspension as valid grounds for bail. It can be seen that each matter must be dealt with on its specific facts and precedents do not necessarily apply generally, as the case May be (4 28 March 23). Legal Context: This application was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It stressed that anticipatory bail ought only to be given in exceptional circumstances.
The matter in dispute was whether a magistrate can instruct the police to put into force an FIR after taking the preliminary statement from me as complainant and ordering it inquire into truth. It was held that 156 CRPC is relate to factors before accepting any case even during appeals which means before a verdict is taken and without making further appearance before the original court– i.e., before meaning in current criminal law as well civil rquirements for appeal Section 200 CRPC: Once the magistrate chose the complaint procedure and recorded preliminary statements under section 200, then he could not go back to the pre-cognizance stage by ordering police register FIR.
Case- Preetha Radhakrishnana vs. State of Kerela & Connected Case The Hon'ble High Court held that the magistrate had the power to cancel under section 437(5) Cr.P.C. and read with 439(2). Both the writ petitions concerning Magistrate's order cancelling bail for 2nd/3rd accused and his decision not to release 1st accused on bail were rejected by the High Court. The verdict pointed out that Magistrates are allowed to cancel bail granted by the High Court where the original bail order gives the Magistrate such power-assuming, however, that a section 439(2) application to this effect has not been filed.