Advocate Vishal Gautam

02/02/2026

दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 की धारा 125 (3) और 128, उत्तर प्रदेश फैमिली कोर्ट नियम, 2006 के नियम 36 तथा दीवानी प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1908 की धारा 60 और आदेश 21 के अंतर्गत भरण-पोषण की वसूली का प्रावधान है।

भरण-पोषण देने के लिए उत्तरदायी व्यक्ति को अपराधी की तरह नहीं माना जा सकता। केवल भरण-पोषण की राशि न देने पर नियमित रूप से गिरफ्तारी वारंट या गैर-जमानती वारंट जारी करना न केवल अवैध है, बल्कि अमानवीय भी है और यह व्यक्ति की गरिमा तथा व्यक्तिगत स्वतंत्रता का उल्लंघन करता है।

नियम 36 के अनुसार वेतनभोगी व्यक्ति के मामले में, दीवानी प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 60 और आदेश 21 के तहत वेतन की कुर्की का प्रावधान केवल एक अतिरिक्त उपाय है, न कि धारा 125 (3) दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता में निर्धारित प्रक्रिया का स्थानापन्न।

दीवानी प्रक्रिया संहिता के प्रावधान केवल उसी स्थिति में लागू होते हैं जब भरण-पोषण का बकायादार वेतनभोगी कर्मचारी हो।













भरण-पोषण की बकाया राशि की वसूली के लिए गिरफ्तारी वारंट जारी किया जाना अनुमन्य नहीं है।

22/12/2025

The observed that an passed by the under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ("LSA") cannot be set aside or annulled by the Executing . The proper avenue for challenging the would be to invoke the supervisory under of the .

Adv.vishal gautam

13/12/2025

No arrest in fresh without permission:

The has issued a significant ruling, taking a tough stand against the 's high-handedness. The court stated that if a person already has a pending case or , they cannot be arrested in filed in the future without court permission.

This decision is extremely important for the protection of and is being considered a historic step to stop the tendency of police to register against the same person again and again.

The , in the case of & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., ruled that an individual who has already been granted or has a pending case cannot be arrested in any subsequent or future First Information Report ( ) related to the same or filed with the intent to defeat the , without obtaining prior permission from the .

Wazid & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) No. 450/2024

Judgment date: August 22, 2025

Adv.vishal gautam

30/11/2025

Most clients ask me what to do if their account is frozen by the without any reason. Here's your answer:

If your account is frozen by the police without any apparent reason, here's what you can do:

1. *Stay calm*: Panicking can lead to poor decision-making.
2. *Contact the *: Reach out to the cyber crime police and ask for the reason behind the freeze.
3. *Gather information*: Request details about the complaint or leading to the freeze.
4. *Seek legal counsel*: Consult a specializing in or financial crimes to understand your options.
5. *File a complaint*: If you believe the freeze is unjustified, you can file a complaint with a senior officer or the relevant authorities.

Your lawyer can guide you through the process and help resolve the issue.

Adv.vishal gautam

26/11/2025

One day, a client came to me and shared their case. They had received a from , ,stating they had to appear in court. After reviewing the summons, I informed them that a criminal complaint had been filed against them and they would need to appear in court.

When I asked about the matter, they explained that they had installed solar panels in a school from a company, but they turned out to be defective. The company had made big promises about the solar panels, but they didn't deliver. This caused significant problems for the school and its students.

My client had sent a notice to the solar company and suffered losses. However, the company retaliated by filing a against my client in . The company claimed my client had withheld ₹17,000 out of ₹10 lakh and had threatened them with violence. My client was summoned under Section .

I advised my client to file a criminal revision, which we did. In court, I presented the facts, arguing the matter was civil in nature, not . The lower court had wrongly summoned my client. After hearing both sides, the order went in our favor, and the lower court's order was canceled.

09/11/2025

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/advocate-vishal-gautam-b30871292_surajpurcourtgreaternoida-advocateingreaternoida-share-7393115893402202112-EbV0?utm_source=social_share_send&utm_medium=android_app&rcm=ACoAAEb2hBQBDTxi9FHDLFANs9XMBGvm3naROgE&utm_campaign=copy_link

Legal Update:- Can a Magistrate order police to register an FIR before taking cognizance? The Supreme Court says YES! In Sadiq B. Hanchinmani v. State of Karnataka (2025 LiveLaw SC 1064), the Apex Court restored an FIR that was wrongly quashed by the High Court - reaffirming that once a complaint di...

07/11/2025

Legal Update:-

Supreme Court stays six-month deadline for filing motor accident claims, directing MACTS and HCs not to reject petitions on grounds of delay.

Case citation:-

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ayiti Navaneetha & Ors.

Adv.Vishal Gautam

06/11/2025

Legal update:

If the Accused is Not Furnished with Written Grounds of Arrest at Least Two Hours Before Being Produced Before the Magistrate, the Arrest and Ensuing Remand are Deemed Illegal: Supreme Court

Advocate Vishal Gautam

27/10/2025

No State Can Freeze Your Bank Account Without Due Process Supreme Court Upholds Natural Justice & Fair Play!

Adv.vishal gautam









10/06/2009

27/09/2025

🅻🅴🅶🅰🅻

🆄🅿🅳🅰🆃🅴 :-

Xerox copy of lost cheque admissible as secondary evidence under S. 65 Evidence Act if original was verified :
Madras High Court

The Court noted that the reading of the proviso to Section 65 of the Evidence Act made it clear that the provision had been enacted to safeguard the interest of a person unable to produce the original. Thus, secondary evidence relating to a document could be given.

The Court reiterated that, as per Sections 63(2) and 63(3) of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence included copies made from the original by mechanical process ensuring accuracy, and copies made from or compared with the original. The Court examined the order and the sworn statement of the petitioner recorded on 15-07-2014 and found that the Trial Court had verified the original cheque, retained the xerox copy, and returned the original to the Petitioner with an endorsement. Thus, the provisions of Sections 63(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act had been satisfied.The Court observed that the general principle was that if the original document existed and was available, it had to be produced because it was the best evidence. However, if the original was lost, destroyed, detained by the opponent or a third person, or physically irrecoverable, secondary evidence was admissible.

Case citation:-

Mohammed Iqbal v. S. Manonmanian, Crl.RC (MD) No. 662 of 2025, decided on 16-09-2025.

Adv.vishal gautam

25/09/2025

No Need For Pre-Cognizance Summons To Accused In S.138 NI Act Case: Supreme Court Issues Directions For Speedy Trial Of Cheque Bounce Cases.

The Court agreed with the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Ashok Vs. Fayaz Aahmad, that there is no requirement to issue summons to the accused at the pre-cognizance stage under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for NI Act complaints.

Case citation:-

SANJABIJ TARI v. KISHORE S. BORCAR & ANR

Advocate Vishal Gautam

22/09/2025

Cheque Bounce Case :

The Supreme Court has reiterated that for a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to be maintainable, the statutory notice of demand must precisely mention the cheque amount. If the amount mentioned in the demand notice varies from the cheque amount ,then the complaint is not maintainable.

Adv.vishal gautam