STOCK MARKET UPDATE

Ticker

6/recent/ticker-posts

SC Cautions: Rampant misuse of Criminal Laws for Arm Twisting in Civil Disputes of Money Recovery,

 Law And Morality In Jurisprudence - Law Corner

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the process of Criminal Law cannot be utilised for arm-twisting and money recovery, particularly while opposing the prayer for bail.

The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was of the view that in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be declined even if the accused has made payment of the money involved or offers to make any payment; conversely, in a given case, the concession of pre-arrest bail or regular bail could be granted irrespective of any payment or any offer of payment.

 Noting that recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceedings, the Court emphasized that, ordinarily, there is no justification in adopting such a course that for the purpose of being given the concession of pre-arrest bail, the person apprehending arrest ought to make payment.

The petitioner herein was aggrieved of the Patna High Court order whereby it took note of the offer made by the accused-respondent No. 2, of making payment of a sum of ₹75,000/-  to the petitioner/informant and, considering such an offer and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case pertaining to offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, granted the concession of pre-arrest bail to the respondents, subject to the offered payment.

The petitioner alleged that informant's daughter's marriage was fixed with respondent's son and in the engagement rituals, amongst other things, the informant’s husband gave a sum of ₹6,00,000/- in cash to the respondents.

 

According to the petitioner-informant, thereafter, the respondents demanded further money and vehicle and, for such a demand being found inappropriate, the marriage was called off but the respondents did not return the money and the articles.

The Court took note of the fact that earlier, the respondents’ prayer for pre-arrest bail was declined by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge which also found enough material to take cognizance of the offences against the accused.

Then, the petition filed in the High Court seeking pre-arrest bail, was also dismissed. The respondents, thereafter, made yet another prayer for pre-arrest bail which was again declined by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the respondents approached the High Court and their petitions were considered together and decided, the order of which has been aggrieved herein.

 The pre-arrest bail plea of the respondents herein was, however, opposed by the State as also by the informant, inter alia, on the ground that the processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 had already been issued and that the money spent in engagement ceremony had not been returned.

Thereafter, an offer was made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 herein that he would make payment of another sum of ₹75,000/- by way of Demand Draft within six weeks; and accepting such a submission, the High Court granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, subject to the offered payment.

The petitioner has contended inter-alia that after issuance of process under Section 82 CrPC, prayer for pre-arrest bail ought not to have been granted; and that it had clearly been a case of illegal demand of money as also cheating of the informant.

 

Allowing the petition, the Court stressed that it has previously indicated on more than one occasion that the process of criminal law, particularly in matters of grant of bail, is not akin to money recovery proceedings but what has been noticed in the present case carries the peculiarities of its own.

"Having examined the matter in its totality, we are not only inclined to dismiss these petitions and affirm the order impugned granting pre-arrest bail to the private respondents but are also inclined to delete the requirement of payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- (seventy-five thousand) to the informant."

 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .

Post a Comment

0 Comments

Custom Real-Time Chart Widget

'; (function() { var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true; dsq.src = '//' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js'; (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq); })();

market stocks NSC