Sharma & Associates

26/01/2026

14/01/2026

13/01/2026

01/01/2026

28/12/2025

Can High Court quash criminal proceedings featuring non-compoundable offences?
Yes

In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the powers conferred under Section 482 of the CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS, can be exercised by the Courts to quash criminal proceedings featuring non-compoundable offences, when the matter arises out of matrimonial or family disputes. Moreover, it is pertinent to satisfy the Court that the said non-compoundable offences are private in nature and do not have a serious impact on society.

It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramgopal and Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 INSC 568, that the extraordinary power enjoined upon the High Courts under Section 482 of the CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS can be invoked even when such a case falls within the ambit of non-compoundable offences, given that the Court is satisfied that the nature of the offence does not impact the conscience of society, and that the compromise between the parties is voluntary and amicable.

05/11/2025

04/11/2025

DISTINCTION BETWEEN BREACH OF CONTRACT AND AN OFFENCE OF
CHEATING

The distinction between breach of contract and an offence of cheating is very fine. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which can be judged by a subsequent conduct but, the
subsequent conduct itself cannot be the sole test.

It is trite law, that for attracting the offence of cheating, there shall be a dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of making the representation. If a person fails subsequently to keep up his promise, it would not mean that he had culpable intention not to fulfil his part of the contract or to keep his promise subsequently.

It was held in S.V.L. Murthy etc. v State (2009) 6 SCC 77, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or
representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure
on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable
intention at the time of making the initial promise being absent, no offence
under Section 420 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out.

04/11/2025

Interim Injunction Under Order 39 Rule 1 of the C.P.C.

The Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs. Harish Ambalal Choksi & Others(2024) 11 SCC 351 has held that interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. can be granted in favour of the plaintiff for restraining the defendant from alienating or selling of the disputed property and a plea of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be taken for not granting the above relief.

The Apex Court has specifically held that if Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was regarded to have provided, all the panacea against the pendente lite transfer then legislature would not have provided the remedy of interim injunction under Order 39 C.P.C.. The Apex Court has specifically held that in a particular case, a relief of injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs for restraining pendente lite transfers in an appropriate case.

01/11/2025

Delhi High Court (Notification dated 15.10.2025) has proposed to amend Orders VI & VIII CPC to include replication within "pleadings" and fix a 30-day limit (extendable to 45 days) for its filing to ensure procedural uniformity.

24/10/2025

Res Judicata and the Rejection of a Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

In Pandurangan v. T. Jayarama Chettiar and anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1425 the SC reiterated the settled position of law that Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC does not allow a defendant to argue before a civil court, that the suit is barred by res judicata. Within the purview of Order 7 Rule 11, only the statements set out in the plaint are to be examined.

Since issues such as whether the suit is barred by res judicata involve the assessment of a whole array of other material, including the judgments and pleadings in the previous suit between the parties, Order 7 Rule 11 is not the appropriate provision to be invoked by a defendant to have the plaint rejected.

However, it is not as if the defendant has to go through a full length trial to establish their claim that the new suit between the parties is barred by res judicata. To examine this claim, a court may frame and try preliminary issues under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC. It can then allow the defendant to furnish the relevant material in order to substantiate the claim that the suit is barred under the principle of res judicata as enumerated in Section 11 CPC.

18/10/2025

Happy Dhanteras, Diwali, Govardhan and Bhaiya Dhooj to all of you.

09/10/2025

CHANCE WITNESS IN A CRIMINAL CASE:
Any person who, by coincidence or chance, is present at the scene of a crime or is passing by the scene of a crime is called a chance witness. If such a person gives testimony in court, he is treated as a chance witness.

For example, A and B, renowned businessmen, are making a deal of drugs in an old house where no one resides or generally visits. C, a news reporter, passing through that lane, was once told about the meetings taking place there. So he reached there for a general inspection. As soon as C reaches there, he sees that A is holding a gun against B and kills B. Here, C is a chance witness. C was not supposed to be there, but by chance, he reached there and witnessed the crime scene.

The Supreme Court, in several decisions, while considering the evidentiary value of a chance witness, has held that the deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident is doubtful should be discarded, or at least be treated with great caution and close scrutiny. Such a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of incident, which has not been satisfactorily done in the instant case. However, it is not the rule of law that a chance witness cannot be believed.
[Kallu Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2012 SC 3212]