SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DEEPAK VERMA, B.S.CHAUHAN
S. Khushboo – Appellant
Versus
Kanniammal – Respondent


Advocates:
VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Initiation of a criminal trial is a process which carries an implicit degree of coercion and it should not be triggered by false and frivolous complaints,amounting to harassment and humiliation to the accused.
2. Obscenity should be gauged with respect to contemporary community standards that reflect the sensibilities as well as the tolerance levels of an average reasonable person.
3. A High Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction should not interfere with a genuine complaint but it should certainly not hesitate to intervene in appropriate case.
4. In respect of offence of defamation, Section 199 Cr.PC mandates that Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only upon receiving a complaint by a person who is aggrieved.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —

1.Leave granted in all the cases.

2.The appellant is a well known actress who has approached this Court to seek quashing of criminal proceedings pending against her. As many as 23 Criminal Complaints were filed against her, mostly in the State of Tamil Nadu, for the offences contemplated under Sections 499, 500 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter ‘IPC’] and Sections 4 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 [hereinafter ‘Act 1986’]. The trigger for the same were some remarks made by the appellant in an interview to a leading news magazine and later on the same issue was reported in a distorted manner in another periodical. Faced with the predicament of contesting the criminal proceedings instituted against her in several locations, the appellant had approached the High Court of Madras, praying for the quashing of these proceedings through the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter ‘Cr.PC.’]. The High Court rejected her plea vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.4.2008. At the same time, in order to prevent the inconvenience of litigating t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top