Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup June 24 - June 30, 2024

Nominal Index:State Vs Raj Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 166Yunius Hussain Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 167Manzoor Hussain Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 168ABDUL ROUF SHAH Vs ATIQA HASSAN & OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 169Vinod Kumar Vs Somi Devi 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 170Sunil Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 171NAZIR AHMAD DAR & ORS Vs UT Of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 172Mohammad Yousuf Bhat Vs Union Of India 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 173ADMINISTRATOR NOTIFIED AREA COMMITTEE KUPWARA Vs KHAZIR MOHAMMAD MALIK AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 174Judgments/Orders: Prosecution Must Prove Continuous Harassment And Proximate Act For Securing Conviction Of Abetment To Suicide: J&K High CourtCase Title: State Vs Raj KumarCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 166The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that for a conviction on charges of abetment to suicide, the prosecution must establish not just continuous harassment but also a clear and proximate act by the accused that demonstrably pushed the victim to take their own life.Courts Must Examine Circumstances Beyond Allegations In FIR In Potentially Vexatious Proceedings: J&K High CourtCase Title: Yunius Hussain Vs UT of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 167Emphasising the need to look beyond the FIR in cases potentially involving frivolous complaints, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed an FIR against a person finding him to be falsely implicated in a case of assault and molestation.A bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal while referencing Salib @ Shalu @ Salim vs. State of UP and ors”. Salib v. State of U.P., 2023 reiterated that courts have a duty to examine the “attending circumstances” beyond the allegations in the FIR, especially when dealing with potentially vexatious proceedings arising from personal disputes.Specific Allegations Against Husband's Relatives Essential To Warrant Their Prosecution For Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: J&K High Court ReiteratesCase Title: Manzoor Hussain Vs UT Of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 168Emphasising that relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted under Section 498-A IPC based on general and vague allegations, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored the necessity for specific allegations to warrant their prosecution.[Domestic Violence Act] No Specific Bar On Filing Appeal Before Sessions Court To Challenge Interim Orders: J&K High Court ClarifiesCase Title: ABDUL ROUF SHAH Vs ATIQA HASSAN & OTHERSCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 169The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court affirmed that there is no specific bar to filing an appeal before the sessions court against an interim order passed under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act.Highlighting the absence of any such bar on the interim orders a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,“if the Legislature intended to keep the interim orders out of the purview of Section 29 of the DV Act, the same could have been specifically provided. In the absence of any specific bar, an interim order, which is included in the definition of 'order' cannot be kept outside the purview of Section 29 of the Act”.Once Complainant's Statement Is Recorded U/S 200 CrPC, Magistrate Can't Pass Directions To Register FIR U/S 156(3): J&K High CourtCase Title: Vinod Kumar Vs Somi DeviCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 170Reinforcing the distinction between a magistrate's powers under Cr.P.C. Sections 156(3) (pre-cognizance) and 200 (cognizance) when handling complaints, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that recording a complainant's statement under Section 200 prohibits issuing an FIR order under Section 156(3).[S.33 Insecticides Act] All Those Responsible For Conduct Of Business Liable When Company Commits Offense Under Insecticides Act: J&K High CourtCase Title: Sunil Kumar Vs Department of Agriculture J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 171The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that under the Insecticides Act, 1968, if a company commits an offence, both the company and the individuals in charge at the time are considered guilty and can be prosecuted and punished.Omnibus Allegations Without Specific Instances Of Harassment Not Sufficient To Attract Offense Of Abetment To Suicide: J&K High CourtCase Title: NAZIR AHMAD DAR & ORS Vs UT Of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 172Quashing an FIR filed against four brothers for allegedly abetting the suicide of their deceased sibling the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observed that mere omnibus allegations of harassment without specific instances wouldn't be sufficient to attract culpability under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to suicide).Denial Of Leave To Attend To Ailing Mother No Grounds To Skip Duty: J&K High Court Upholds Withholding Of CRPF Personnel's Salary For Unauthorised AbsenceCase Title: Mohammad Yousuf Bhat Vs Union Of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 173The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has upheld the withholding of salary of a CRPF personnel for unauthorized absence from duty, observing that...

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup June 24 - June 30, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags