Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, MR. R. MAHADEVAN, JJ
B. BERNARD DOROTHY JOSAIN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (L AND O) & ANR. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial efforts to promote compromise in disputes. (Para 1) |
| 2. lack of genuine engagement in apology affects legal outcomes. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's disappointment with conduct regarding previously noted settlement initiatives. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. final dismissal reflects adherence to legal procedures. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
2. On 03.02.2026, when the matter was taken up, it was the categorical stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court that the petitioner is ready to apologize and compromise with the complainant-respondent no.2. However, as the petitioner joined the proceeding virtually, but respondent no.2-complainant was not represented before the Court, we had adjourned the matter for 04.02.2026.
4. Today, as directed, both the parties are connected to the Court proceedings through video conferencing from the concerned Police Station.
6. The Court is shocked at such conduct, which was not represented before the Court on the earlier two occasions.
8. For reasons aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
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
