UP: 30-year-old man gets rigorous life imprisonment for killing Dalit man
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
HRF and HRW demands criminal prosecution against police personnel
The Human Rights Forum (HRF) and the Human Rights Watch (HRW) demanded criminal prosecution of police personnel responsible for the killing of three Maoist armed squad members on the morning of June 18, 2025 in the forest area of Rampachodavaram mandal in Alluri Sitharama Raju district, Andhra Pradesh. In a statement released by HRF on Monday (July 21), they noted that those involved must be booked under relevant provisions of the law, including murder and the SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is imperative that an independent, impartial investigation — either by the CBI or under Supreme Court monitoring — be taken up. It cannot be entrusted to the local police, regular or special, since they are implicated in the crime, as HRF's AP and TS coordination committee member V. Krishna said. A three-member HRF and HRW team on July 18, 2025 visited the Rampachodavaram Agency area on a fact-finding into the 'encounter'. 'We spoke with Adivasis of several villages in the Vemulakonda and Akuru panchayats as well as residents of Kintukuru, a remote habitation. The version of the police that a combing party of Greyhounds personnel were fired upon by the Maoists and the retaliatory fire in self-defence resulted in the death of three Maoists is a patent falsehood,' Mr. Krishna told The Hindu on Monday. The rights activists alleged that the three Maoists were ambushed and executed in a burst of one-sided firing by the Greyhounds in the early morning of June 18. The Maoists had encamped deep in the forest area at a location about 3.5 km to the West of Kintukuru village. The camp is at a place referred locally as 'Oota mamidi' a perennial spring abutting a mango tree. Just behind it is a rivulet that flows East to merge with the Pamuleru vaagu. The three Maoists had camped at that spot for over two weeks. A large contingent of Greyhounds went via Kintukuru (Akuru panchayat) past midnight of June 17. They evidently had precise detail of the camp location, which they surrounded from two sides to the South. The Greyhounds opened fire at daybreak, killing all three Maoists. There was no exchange of fire — no crossfire — only a targeted execution. The Greyhounds could have easily apprehended the three alive but they chose to kill them instead, the HRF and HRW members alleged. The three Maoists killed were Gajarla Ravi (of Velishala village in Chityala mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally district, Telangana), who was also a member of the Central Committee of the banned Maoist party, Venkata Ravivarma Chaitanya (of Karakavanipalem in Pendurthi mandal, Visakhapatnam district, A.P.) and Kovvasi Anju, an Adivasi from Bodagubal village, Konta block, Sukma district of Chattisgarh. The bodies were taken to the Rampachodavaram Area Hospital the same evening, but the post-mortem was deliberately delayed until the next day. Relatives were forced to wait, plead, and it was only after sustained media pressure that they ultimately received the decomposed bodies late on the night of June 19. By the time they were brought home, the bodies were infested with worms, HRF A.P. State general secretary Y Rajesh said. Since January 2024, over 440 Maoists and unarmed civilians — preponderantly Adivasis in Chattisgarh — have been killed in encounters, many of them allegedly staged, they alleged. 'We call on the Central and State governments in Maoist-affected regions to immediately halt this campaign,' HRW A.P. State president Balu Akkisa said. HRF and HRW are of the opinion that the Maoists' repeated offers to cease hostilities and pursue peace talks warrants the government's utmost seriousness and constructive engagement.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Invoking criminal law for recovery of money is abuse of law: Supreme Court
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Invoking criminal law by filing an FIR for recovery of money by a person is an abuse of the process of law as it is a civil dispute, the Supreme Court said and expressed frustration over HCs allowing it in violation of its rulings. The apex court stated this while quashing criminal proceedings initiated by a production house against Bollywood filmmaker Shailesh Kumar Singh, who had produced 'Tanu Weds Manu', over a monetary dispute. 'How many times HCs are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of FIR does not disclose any element of criminality,' a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said in an order on July 14. Indicating that HCs have virtually turned a deaf ear to its recent orders holding that such cases come within the ambit of civil suits, the bench referred to its verdicts which had settled the issue. It said SC in Aug had stated that a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Hiranandani Fortune City: At Panvel, Mumbai: 2BHK: 1.05 Cr* Hiranandani Fortune City Enquire Now Undo 'Every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of a manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts but, any breach of trust with a mens rea, gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well,' it had said. Advocate Sana Raees Khan, appearing for producer Shailesh Kumar Singh, told the court that no criminal offence was made out against him and criminal prosecution should not be allowed to be used as an instrument of harassment. Agreeing with her, the bench quashed the FIR and also expressed shock on how the Allahabad HC dealt with the case by directing him to pay Rs 25 lakh to the complainant. SC also directed them to go for mediation. 'We fail to understand why the HC should undertake such an exercise. The HC may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the HC make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the civil court or commercial court, as the case may be, to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings,' SC said. 'We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the HC has passed the impugned order. The HC first directed the appellant to pay Rs 25 lakh to the respondent, and thereafter, directed him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement. That's not what is expected of an HC to do in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR or any other criminal proceedings,' SC said. It said that 'what is expected of the HC is to look into the averments and the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other material on record, if any. The HC seems to have forgotten the well-settled principles as enunciated in the decision of this court'.
News18
5 hours ago
- News18
How Many Times Do We Need To Remind HCs What Constitutes Cheating, Asks SC
The SC bench said, "We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order." The Supreme Court recently expressed anguish by asking as to how many times do the High Courts need to be reminded of the constituents of the offence of cheating. The SC said that there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took a strong exception to an Allahabad High Court's order of March 7, which directed petitioner Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R Singh, who sought quashing of a First Information Report (FIR), to go for mediation and simultaneously also ordered him to hand over a demand draft of Rs 25,00,000 for the purpose of mediation to the original complainant. Holding that the plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality, the bench said, 'We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order." The court noted the High Court first directed the appellant to pay Rs 25,00,000 to the respondent No.4 and thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement. 'That's not what is expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR or any other criminal proceedings," the bench said. 'What is expected of the High Court is to look into the averments and the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other material on record, if any," the bench added. 'The High Court seems to have forgotten the well-settled principles as enunciated in the decision of this Court in the 'State of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal & Others" reported in 1992," the bench said. In its order, the court pointed out, it called upon the counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 to make it understand in what manner the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 'We also called upon the counsel to make us understand in what manner his client could be said to have been cheated so as to constitute the offence of cheating. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties," the bench said. The respondent No.4 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant – herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the respondent No.4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant, the bench asked. Having gone through the facts of the matter, the bench pointed out, the entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of 'Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2024). In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. The court noted, it appears that this very decision was relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. 'However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs 25,00,000 to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent," the bench said. 'We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise," the bench asked. The court emphasised the High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. 'Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016," the bench said. The court asked as to why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. The bench said it also enquired with the counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. 'It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law," the bench underscored. The court said it could have said many things but it refrained from observing anything further. 'If the respondent No.4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings," the court held. The court quashed the impugned FIR and clarified that it shall be open for the respondent No.4 to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for the recovery of the alleged amount due and payable to him. The First Information Report was registered on January 09 under Sections 60(b), 316(2) and 318(2) of B.N.S., 2023, with P.S. Hariparwat, District Agra. The petitioner submitted that he is a co-founder and production head of M/s Karma Media and Entertainment LLP, which is primarily engaged in production of motion picture. The respondent no.4 (informant) is running the business under the name and style of M/s Polaroid Media, which is engaged in the business of financing, coproduction and co-financing media projects. He claimed the informant has lodged the impugned FIR by dragging a civil dispute inter-se the parties into criminal case. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 21, 2025, 16:36 IST News india How Many Times Do We Need To Remind HCs What Constitutes Cheating, Asks SC Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
