Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Krishnakumari – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its, The Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial discretion in issuing warrants (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 10) |
| 2. overview of prosecution and petitioner’s claims (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. maintainability and alternate remedies (Para 11 , 12 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. limitations of inherent jurisdiction (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. justice for victims and societal impact of caste-based violence (Para 35 , 41 , 43) |
| 6. dismissal and opportunity for further relief (Para 47 , 48) |
ORDER :
Prologue:
Justice in this land has long been measured not by the status of the accused, but by the depth of the wrong and the voice of the aggrieved. Tamil tradition recalls the legendary reign of Manu Neethi Cholan, who, upon hearing the cry of a voiceless cow whose calf was killed under his son’s chariot, chose to subject his own son to the rigour of law, affirming that justice admits no exception, even for one’s own kin. Centuries later, the constitutional promise of equality before law enshrined in Article 14, and the protection of life and dignity under Article 21, continue to echo that timeless principle. Yet, incidents of honour killing, driven by caste prejudice and misplaced notions of familial pride, remind us that the journey from legend to lived realit
The court ruled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS cannot override established procedural norms in criminal proceedings, particularly in serious cases like honour killings.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and must be supported by specific reasons to protect individual liberties under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely and must be justified with specific reasons, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public interest.
Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants requires specific justifications and must not occur routinely; individual liberty should be prioritized unless necessitated by compelling circumstances.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued routinely; courts must provide adequate reasoning and evidence to justify such action, ensuring individual liberty is not curtailed without necessity.
Non-bailable warrants must not be issued routinely and require specific judicial justification to protect individual liberties as mandated by Article 21.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner; courts must ensure specific, reasoned justification for their necessity to protect individual liberties.
The court established that non-bailable warrants must be issued judiciously, prioritizing personal liberty and procedural correctness.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
