Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 21 To August 27

NOMINAL INDEXSurojit Dasgupta Vs State Of West Bengal And Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 229Dwaipayan Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. & connected application. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 230Sri X v State of West Bengal & ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 231Sanjoy Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 232Bishal Das & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 233 Subhas Chandra Patra Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 234Rajib Samanta v The State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 235Manab Jati Kalyan Foundation and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and others 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 236Pritimoy Chakraborty Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 237Nirmal Kumar Das @ Nirmal Das v The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 238Uphealth Holdings Inc. v Glocal Healthcare Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 2391. Discipline Must Be Maintained By Devotees’: Calcutta HC Dismisses PIL For Guidelines On Visiting Jalpesh Shiv Temple, Directs DM To ConsiderCase: Surojit Dasgupta Vs State Of West Bengal And OrsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 229The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking issuance of guidelines for regulation of pilgrims visiting the Jalpesh Temple shivmandir in North Bengal, on the grounds that the authorities were “depriving the petitioners of the fundamental right” to observe their age-old practise of offering holy water to the deity at the temple by entering its “garba griha.”In ordering the District Magistrate and other officials to hold a public consultation/hearing looking into the suggestions placed by the petitioners “bearing in mind the convenience of the worshipping public,” a division-bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya held:“So far as regulating manner of worship in temple or any other place, it best be left with the district administration to take care of the same. There are several instances in West Bengal where the district administration has been proactively regulating the influx of the pilgrims in various places of worship as well as places of public importance. Therefore the petitioner and his co-signatories should bestow confidence in the district administration that they will do the best to ensure that the devotees offer their prayers in an appropriate manner.”2. Misuse Of S.498A IPC By Women Unleashes “Legal Terrorism”: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Against Husband & In-LawsCase: Dwaipayan Das Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. & connected application.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 230The Calcutta High Court on Monday, quashed two criminal complaints filed by a wife (“opposite party no 2"), against her husband and in-laws (“petitioners”), on various counts of domestic violence, attempted murder, criminal intimidation, etc. under the IPC.In noting that the medical evidence on record, as well as witness statements did not corroborate with the opposite party no 2’s version of events, a single-bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta quashed the criminal proceedings, and held: “The allegation of physical and mental torture in both the cases appears to be general and omnibus. The ingredients of the offence specifically the statement of available witnesses does not disclose any specific prima facie materials by which the present petitioner can be entangled for the offences u/s 498A IPC. The legislature has enacted the provision of Section 498A to strike out the dowry menace from the society. But it is observed in several cases that by misusing of said provision new legal terrorism is unleashed.”3.'Wishing The Best' To Minor Gang-Rape Survivor, Calcutta High Court Allows Termination Of 25+ Weeks PregnancyCase: Sri X v State of West Bengal & orsCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Cal) 231The Calcutta High Court permitted medical termination of pregnancy of a minor gang rape survivor, which had exceeded the 24-week statutory limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.On an earlier occasion, the Court had noted that the present case fell under the exception envisaged under the 1971 Act, wherein there could be a risk to the life of the mother in case the pregnancy was allowed to continue, and had directed the formation of a medical board to assess the viability of abortion for the minor girl who was 25+ weeks pregnant.Upon perusing the report of the medical board, a single bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya held:The crux of the said report is that considering the circumstances and the physical and mental conditions of the patient, the Board Members have arrived at a decision that pregnancy should be terminated, but for the safety of the patient and to mitigate any complication, it should preferably be done at a higher centre than the one where the survivor is now located. Since an extremely fair stand has been taken by the respondent nos. 7 and 8, the respondent nos. 7 and 8 are directed to ensure that the survivor, whose pregnancy is to be terminated medically, is...

Calcutta High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 21 To August 27

Srinjoy Das

Tags