SHAILENDRA SHUKLA
Ekta Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint about obscenity in web series. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner argues artistic expression against complaint. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court observes case merits continued investigation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. judicial guidelines on quashing fir. (Para 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 5. court dismisses petitioner’s request. (Para 111) |
ORDER :
Shailendra Shukla, J.
Heard the learned counsel through video conferencing.
1. This order seeks to dispose of the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 02142020, registered at police station Anapurna, Indore (M.P.), under the provisions of Sections 294 , 298 and 34 of IPC, under Sections 67 and 67-A of I.T. Act and Section 3 of State Emblem Act .
2. Facts which are relevant for discussion in this matter are that the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioner with regard to transmission of an episode in web series (XXX Uncensored) on Zee 5 which is being promoted
Aveek Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 2014 SC 1493 : (2014) 4 SCC 257
Sharat Babu Digumarti vs. Government of Delhi (NCT) (2017) 2 SCC 18
Ranjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1965 SC 881
Aneeta Hada vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited reported in 2012(5) SCC 661
Ajay Goswami vs. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.