Sahayata & Sahayata

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v State of Maharashtra (2014) had held that the place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial of the offence under Section 139 NI  Act must be restricted to where the drawee bank, is located.

The law laid by Delhi High Court in S.P. Gupta Vs State 2005 AD Delhi in Paragraphs 11 and 13 is clear on the point that any citizen can approach the court/police for investigation of the cognizable offence. 

PARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND ORS VS STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.: The Supreme Court discussed various precedents on the subject summarised the following points/propositions in relation to section 482 for FIR Quashing.... Read Judgement

Youth Bar Association of India Vs Union of India and Others...  (1)  An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. (b) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be .......read whole judgement 

Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Hariprakash Case 2015 1 AD Delhi) is clear on the point that at the stage of framing charge evidence is not to be evaluated.

Property Law, If one property belongs to two owner and one of them relinqush the same to the other co-owner. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Chief Controlling Revenue Vs Rm. I. L. Lakshmanan Chetiar AIR 1970 Mad 348 it has been clearly laid that the renunciation must be in favour of a person who had already title to estate, the effect of which is only to enlarge the rights; renunciation does not vest in a person a title where it did not existed. It is further laid that that each co-owner is entitled to enjoy the entire property