19 April 2025 Legal Updates

S.12 DV ACT | MOTHER-IN-LAW HARASSED OR TORTURED BY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW CAN FILE COMPLAINT TO MAGISTRATE FOR RELIEF: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

(a) Case Name:

• X versus State of U.P.

(b) Court:

• Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 4, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Justice Alok Mathur

Key Facts

The mother-in-law alleged that the daughter-in-law pressured her son to live with her parents in Raebareli. When refused, the daughter-in-law allegedly began misbehaving with and abusing the complainant and her family. The complaint alleged that on June 30, 2024, the daughter-in-law and her family forcibly took away jewelry and cash

Arguments

The Complainant contended that:

• The proceedings were initiated with malafide intentions
• The applicants had already filed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the complainant.
• The complaint was a counter-blast to their legal actions
• A mother-in-law cannot file an application under Section 12 of the DV Act

Court's Findings

• The trial court had properly considered the complaint which contained clear allegations of domestic violence
• At the summoning stage, the court is only required to consider the material available in the form of complaint
• The complaint disclosed a prima facie case under Section 12 of the DV Act
• The court rejected the argument that a mother-in-law cannot file an application under the DV Act

Key Legal Principles Established

• The definition of "aggrieved person" under the DV Act should not be narrowly interpreted. A mother-in-law who is harassed or tortured by her daughter-in-law can be considered an "aggrieved person" under the Act
• Any woman who has lived in a domestic relationship in a shared household with the respondent can file an application

Decision

The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC, finding no merit in the challenge to the summoning order dated September 13, 2024.

S.12 JJ ACT | PURPOSE OF LAW TO REFORM CHILDREN IN CONFLICT, PUNISHING THEM WOULD BE SELF DESTRUCTIVE FOR SOCIETY: PATNA HIGH COURT

(a) Case Name:

• X vs. The State of Bihar

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Patna

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 16, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar

Key Facts

The petitioner, a juvenile, was accused in Konch P.S. Case No. 195/2018 for offenses under Sections 395, 376D, 397, 376(3), and 376(DA) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) determined the petitioner was 16 years, 9 months, and 26 days old at the time of the alleged incident. After preliminary assessment, the JJB transferred the case to the Children Court for trial as an adult. Both the JJB and the Children Court denied bail to the petitioner.

Court's Analysis

The court found that the lower courts' observations were not supported by evidence:

• The lower courts had denied bail citing lack of parental control, bad company, and potential danger to the juvenile.
• The High Court found these claims inconsistent with the Social Investigation Report and witness statements.
• The court noted that the petitioner was the eldest son from a poor Scheduled Caste family who had dropped out of school after Class V to help his family in cultivation.
• The petitioner had no criminal antecedents, and allegations against him were based on suspicion without specific evidence.

Legal Principles discussed

1. Bail as a Rule for Juveniles:

• The court emphasized that under Section 12 of the JJ Act, bail to juveniles is the rule and refusal is the exception.

2. Grounds for Denying Bail:

Bail can be denied to a juvenile only on three specific grounds:

• If release would bring the juvenile into association with known criminals
• If release would expose the juvenile to moral, physical, or psychological danger
• If release would defeat the ends of justice

3. Irrelevance of Offense Gravity:

• The court clarified that the seriousness of the alleged offense or the age of the juvenile are not relevant considerations for denying bail under Section 12.

4. Different Interpretation of "Ends of Justice":

• The court distinguished that "ends of justice" in the JJ Act context differs from its meaning in penal statutes - it refers to reformation and rehabilitation, not punishment.

5. Family as Primary Institution:

• The court recognized that the family is considered the best and first desirable institution for the care and reformation of juvenile offenders, with institutionalization being the last resort.

Decision

The court allowed the appeal and directed the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to:

• A bail bond of Rs. 10,000 by his mother
• An undertaking that the juvenile would avoid criminal contacts, restart education, and attend court when required

The court also issued directives to the District Magistrate to ensure the family receives appropriate welfare benefits, and to the District Legal Services Authority to assist with documentation and educational enrollment.

WHEN BREACH OF CONTRACT IS EXPLAINED, HARSH PENALTIES LIKE BLACKLISTING WHICH IMPACTS OTHERS' EMPLOYMENT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED: PUNJAB & HARYANA HC

(a) Case Name:

• M/s Floral Electrical Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and Another

(b) Court:

• High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 1, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Suri

Background

The petitioner, M/s Floral Electrical Pvt. Ltd., was a joint venture partner with M/s Gupta Industries for constructing a 132 KV sub-station at Hansi. The joint venture partners were contractually bound to be "jointly and severally" responsible for the execution of the contract. When the project faced significant delays, Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL) terminated the contract and imposed several penalties including blacklisting/debarring both joint venture partners from doing business with HVPNL for one year.

Key Issues

• Whether the blacklisting/debarring of the petitioner company was justified when arbitration proceedings regarding contractual disputes were already underway?
• Whether a joint venture partner could be penalized when it was not the lead partner handling the financial transactions?

Court's Analysis

1. The Court ruled that:

• Blacklisting is a "drastic remedy" with severe consequences that amounts to "civil death" for a business entity
• When a genuine contractual dispute exists and arbitration has been invoked, blacklisting should be avoided until the dispute resolution process concludes
• Only conduct that is "palpably abhorrent" justifies such a severe penalty
• Strict adherence to principles of natural justice is required before imposing such a penalty

2. The Court found that HVPNL had acted prematurely by imposing blacklisting when:

• A contractual dispute resolution mechanism (arbitration) had already been initiated
• The petitioner had provided bona fide explanations for the contractual issues
• The arbitration proceedings might have revealed whether the attributed misconduct was legitimate or not

Decision

1. The Court allowed the petition and:

• Quashed the blacklisting/debarring order
• Directed HVPNL to remove/delete the blacklisting/debarring status from the petitioner's records

2. Legal Principles Established

• Blacklisting should not be imposed when there's a bona fide dispute under arbitration
• Governmental authorities must follow principles of natural justice when imposing such severe penalties
• Arbitration should be allowed to conclude before imposing drastic remedies like blacklisting
• The penalty must be proportionate to the established misconduct