Skip to content
New Delhi, Delhi, 110025

Business hours

Law Office of R. Siddiqui

Monday
24 hours
Tuesday
24 hours
Wednesday
24 hours
Thursday
24 hours
Friday
24 hours
Saturday
24 hours
Sunday
24 hours

You can anytime during the day with your query.

8445111102
Law Office of R. Siddiqui

Latest Posts & Updates

Fresh stories, announcements and offers about Divorce Lawyer, Lawyer, Legal services, straight from our business.

Kerala HC says no criminal case against teacher if intention of beating is to guide

The Kodanad police had filed a case against the teacher under Section 324 of the IPC and Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Kerala HC says no criminal case against teacher if intention of beating is to guide KOCHI : The Kerala High Court has ruled that a criminal case will not stand against a teacher for beating a student if the intention is to guide the individual towards academic improvement. Justice A Badharudeen issued the order in response to a petition filed by Jomi, an English teacher and the principal of St Joseph School, Thottuva, seeking to dismiss the case. The teacher was accused of beating a 13-year-old Class VIII girl after she failed to secure fair marks on a test paper. The court pointed out that despite the allegation of physical punishment, no serious injuries were sustained. “The teacher had no malafide intention while beating the student or his intention was to guide her by alerting her to the necessity of studying well and securing high marks in the subject” stated the court order. The Kodanad police had filed a case against the teacher under Section 324 of the IPC and Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The petitioner argued that the act of disciplining the student, done within the implied authority given by the parents and with genuine intent to guide the student, should not be considered an offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

Kerala HC says no criminal case against teacher if intention of beating is to guide post imageRead full post

POCSO Act being misused against teenagers in consensual relationships: Allahabad High Court

The judicial system should aim to balance the protection of minors with the recognition of their autonomy in certain contexts, the Court stressed. The Allahabad High Court recently observed that Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was being misused against teenagers in consensual romantic relationships [Satish Alias Chand vs State of UP and 3 Others]. Justice Krishan Pahal said that such cases require a nuanced approach and careful judicial consideration to ensure that justice is served appropriately. The challenge lies in distinguishing between genuine cases of exploitation and those involving consensual relationships, the Court said. “This court has every now and then expressed concern regarding the application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on adolescents. While the Act's primary objective is to protect children under the age of majority (18) from sexual exploitation, there are cases where it has been misused, particularly in consensual romantic relationships between teenage persons,” the Court said.

POCSO Act being misused against teenagers in consensual relationships: Allahabad High Court post imageRead full post

Person can't be booked for abetment of suicide for filing complaint against deceased: Kerala High…

Person can't be booked for abetment of suicide for filing complaint against deceased: Kerala High Court. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the offence of abetment will arise only when there is an instigation or goading by the accused to commit suicide. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas with Kerala HC The Kerala High Court recently held that a person cannot be booked for abetment of suicide merely because he had filed a complaint with the police against the deceased [Murali@Muralidharan & anr v State of Kerala].

Person can't be booked for abetment of suicide for filing complaint against deceased: Kerala High… post imageRead full post

Excise Policy case: Delhi Court sends Arvind Kejriwal to judicial custody till July 12 in CBI case.

The CBI arrested Kejriwal on June 26, while he was in judicial custody in connection with the money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate. A Delhi court on Saturday sent Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to judicial custody till July 12 in a corruption case concerning the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy of 2021-22, after his three-day custody with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ended today. Vacation Judge Sunena Sharma of Rouse Avenue Courts passed the order after the CBI did not seek an extension of its custody of Kejriwal. Following a request by Kejriwal, the court has also permitted him to appear through video conferencing in the next hearing instead of having the authorities produce him physically. The CBI had urged the court to sent Kejriwal to 14 days of judicial custody, contending that he was an influential politician who could tamper with evidence and influence witnesses if he did not remain in custody. In its application, the CBI further said that although Kejriwal has been evasive and not truthful in answering the agency's questions, his further custodial interrogation is not required for the present.

Excise Policy case: Delhi Court sends Arvind Kejriwal to judicial custody till July 12 in CBI case. post imageRead full post

Hello Everyone

I Try To Feth Some News Changes Sections Of IPC Which Are Regularly Used By Us . IPC to BNS 1. 302 IPC = 103 BNS 2. 304(A) IPC = 106 BNS 3. 304(B) IPC = 80 BNS 4. 306 IPC = 108 BNS 5. 307 IPC = 109 BNS 6. 309 IPC = 226 BNS 7. 286 IPC = 287 BNS 8. 294 IPC = 296 BNS 9. 509 IPC = 79 BNS 10. 323 IPC = 115 BNS 11. R/W 34 IPC = 3(5) BNS 12. R/W 149 = R/W 190 BNS 13. 324 IPC = 118(1) BNS 14. 325 IPC = 118(2) BNS 15. 326 IPC = 118(3) BNS 16. 353 IPC = 121 BNS 17. 336 IPC = 125 BNS 18. 337 IPC = 125 BNS(A) 19. 338 IPC = 125 BNS(B) 20. 341 IPC = 126 BNS 21. 353 IPC = 132 BNS 22. 354 IPC = 74 BNS 23. 354(A) IPC = 75 BNS 24. 354(B) IPC = 76 BNS 25. 354(C) IPC = 77 BNS 26. 354(D) IPC = 78 BNS 27. 363 IPC = 139 BNS 28. 376 IPC = 64 BNS 29. 384 IPC = 286 BNS 30. 386 IPC = 288 BNS (Fine - 5000/-) 31. 390 IPC = 292 BNS (Fine - Rs 1000/-) 32. 394 IPC = 296 BNS 33. 447 IPC = 329 (3) BNS 34. 448 IPC = 329 (4) BNS 35. 392 IPC = 309 BNS 36. 411 IPC = 317 BNS 37. 420 IPC = 318 BNS 38. 382 IPC = 304 BNS 39. 442 IPC = 330 BNS 40. 445 IPC = 330 BNS 41. 447 IPC = 330 BNS 42. 448 IPC = 331 BNS 43. 494 IPC = 82 BNS 44. 498(A) IPC = 85 BNS 45. 506 IPC = 351 BNS 46. 509 IPC = 79 BNS *(petty basic offences)* 47. 9(I), 9(II) = 112 BNS BNS will be applicable from 01.07.2024. Regards R Siddiqui (Best Criminal Lawyer in Delhi) (Best Bail Lawyer)

Hello Everyone post imageRead full post

Husband's Paramour Is Not Relative Or Family Member, Cannot Be Dragged Into Proceedings U/S 498A…

Husband's Paramour Is Not Relative Or Family Member, Cannot Be Dragged Into Proceedings U/S 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by a woman against the paramour of her husband. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the woman and her mother who were arrayed as accused in the case registered under sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As per the complaint, the accused No.1 and the complainant are husband and wife. Their marriage took place on 07.02.2022. It was stated that the relationship between husband - accused No.1 and the complainant floundered, and the impugned crime came to be registered against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8, who were all members of the family or the mother-in-law or father-in-law of the complainant.

Husband's Paramour Is Not Relative Or Family Member, Cannot Be Dragged Into Proceedings U/S 498A… post imageRead full post

विदेश में किए गए अपराध पर भारत में केंद्र सरकार की मंजूरी के बिना सीआरपीसी की धारा 188 के तहत मुक…

विदेश में किए गए अपराध पर भारत में केंद्र सरकार की मंजूरी के बिना सीआरपीसी की धारा 188 के तहत मुकदमा नहीं चलाया जा सकता: केरल हाईकोर्ट जस्टिस ए. बदरुद्दीन ने धारा 188 सीआरपीसी के तहत केंद्र सरकार की पूर्व मंजूरी के अभाव में पति के खिलाफ आईपीसी की धारा 498ए के तहत शुरू की गई आपराधिक कार्यवाही रद्द कर दिया। कोर्ट ने कहा, “इस मामले में यह देखा जा सकता है कि प्रथम आरोपी द्वारा किए गए कथित सभी आरोप, जो आईपीसी की धारा 498ए के तहत अपराध को आकर्षित करते हैं, भारत के बाहर हैं। यह मामला निश्चित रूप से सीआरपीसी की धारा 188 के दायरे में आएगा। इसलिए धारा 188 सीआरपीसी के तहत पूर्व मंजूरी प्राप्त किए बिना वर्तमान कार्यवाही गलत है।” पति ने अपने खिलाफ दर्ज अंतिम रिपोर्ट रद्द करने के लिए हाईकोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाया, जिसमें कहा गया कि आपराधिक मुकदमा शुरू करने के लिए धारा 188 सीआरपीसी के तहत केंद्र सरकार से मंजूरी नहीं ली गई। उन्होंने प्रस्तुत किया कि वैवाहिक क्रूरता के सभी आरोप तब लगाए गए, जब वास्तविक शिकायतकर्ता ऑस्ट्रेलिया में उनके साथ रह रही थी। धारा 188 सीआरपीसी और सरताज खान बनाम उत्तराखंड राज्य में सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले का विश्लेषण करने पर न्यायालय ने माना कि यदि अपराध का हिस्सा भारत में किया गया तो किसी भी मंजूरी की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं थी। न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट किया, मामले के तथ्यों में न्यायालय ने पाया कि पति के खिलाफ आरोपों की संपूर्णता तब की गई, जब वे ऑस्ट्रेलिया में रह रहे थे। इस प्रकार, इसने माना कि पति के खिलाफ अपराध की जांच या सुनवाई केंद्र सरकार की पूर्व मंजूरी के बिना नहीं की जा सकती। इस प्रकार, न्यायालय ने पति के खिलाफ शुरू की गई आपराधिक कार्यवाही रद्द कर दी।

विदेश में किए गए अपराध पर भारत में केंद्र सरकार की मंजूरी के बिना सीआरपीसी की धारा 188 के तहत मुक… post imageRead full post

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आप को 10 अगस्त तक दिल्ली में राउज़ एवेन्यू स्थित अपना दफ़्तर खाली करने को कहा है।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि न्यायिक बुनियादी ढांचे के विस्तार के लिए दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय को भूखंड आवंटित किया गया था, लेकिन आप ने अपना दफ़्तर यहीं बना लिया। कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट किया कि यह आम आदमी पार्टी के लिए अंतिम विस्तार होगा।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने आप को 10 अगस्त तक दिल्ली में राउज़ एवेन्यू स्थित अपना दफ़्तर खाली करने को कहा है। post imageRead full post

Case should not be transferred from a judge on grounds of bias without hearing the judge: Delhi H…

Case should not be transferred from a judge on grounds of bias without hearing the judge: Delhi High Court. The High Court ordered all the Principal District Judges to mandatorily invite comments from the concerned judge whenever transfer of a case is sought on allegations of bias. The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued a set of directions to be followed by Principal District and Sessions Judges while dealing with transfer applications filed before them [Directorate of Enforcement v Ajay S Mittal]. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma ordered that all the Principal District and Sessions judges should ensure that no case is transferred from a judge on allegations of bias unless the concerned judge’s comments are mandatorily invited and considered. The following direction were issued in this regard: - The comments of the concerned judge from whom the case is sought to be transferred on ground of bias will be called mandatorily; - The application will be decided after considering the said comments and in light of principles of real apprehension of bias; - The other principles regarding the attending circumstances being considered will also be taken into consideration at the time of deciding such applications.

Case should not be transferred from a judge on grounds of bias without hearing the judge: Delhi H… post imageRead full post

Supreme Court denies (for now) interim bail to AAP Punjab MLA Jaswant Singh; seeks ED reply

The Court has sought the response of the Union government and the Enforcement Directorate to Singh's plea challenging his arrest, as well as his application for interim bail to campaign for the Lok Sabha elections. The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant interim bail to Punjab legislator Jaswant Singh without first hearing the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central government in the matter [Jaswant Singh vs Union of India and anr]. Singh has sought interim release from prison for the purpose of campaigning for the ongoing Lok Sabha elections A Vacation Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, however, refused to grant any interim relief through an ex-parte order (order without hearing the other side). It proceeded to call for the response of the Union government and the ED to Singh's plea challenging his arrest by the central agency, as well as his application for interim bail.

Supreme Court denies (for now) interim bail to AAP Punjab MLA Jaswant Singh; seeks ED reply post imageRead full post

Delhi High Court grants bail to Sharjeel Imam in Sedition, UAPA case

Imam will, however, continue to remain in jail since he is also an accused in the larger conspiracy case in relation to the Delhi riots. The Delhi High Court on Monday granted statutory bail to activist Sharjeel Imam in a sedition and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case filed against him for allegedly making inflammatory speeches in Delhi's Jamia area and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain passed the order after taking into account the fact that he has already served half of the sentence for the offences invoked against him. Imam will, however, continue to remain in jail since he is also an accused in the larger conspiracy case in relation to the Delhi riots of 2020. Imam approached the High Court against the trial court order denying him bail in the sedition case. The case relates to the speeches made by Imam at AMU and Jamia area while protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizenship (NRC). He was arrested in the case on January 28, 2020. It was Imam's argument that he had already spent four years in jail out of the maximum sentence of seven years and is, therefore, eligible for statutory bail. He said that the offence of sedition has been kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court of India and the UAPA provisions invoked against him do not carry more than seven years sentence.

Delhi High Court grants bail to Sharjeel Imam in Sedition, UAPA case post imageRead full post