Delhi High Court Weekly Round Up: August 15 To August 21, 2022

NOMINAL INDEX

Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 782 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 791

RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 782

FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 783

MOHD AZIZUL v. STATE 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 784

SYED SHAHNAWAZ HUSSAIN v. THE STATE & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 785

Vinod Kumar Kila v. CBI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 786

SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 787

SUNITA & ANR. v. VIJAY PAL @ MOHD. SABIR & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 788

JOGINDER SINGH RAINA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 789

KAJAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 790

Ashish Kumar Srivastava v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 791

1. "Legal Regime Apropos Sports Administration Has To Be Implemented Fully": Delhi High Court Places Indian Olympic Association Under CoA

Case Title: RAHUL MEHRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 782

Observing that the legal regime apropos sports administration in India has to be implemented fully and effectively, the Delhi High Court has put the affairs of Indian Olympic Association (IOA) in the hands of a Committee of Administrators (CoA) as per a recent Supreme Court order.

A division bench comprising of Justice Najmi Waziri and Justice Manmohan concluded that if a sports federation does not comply with the law of the land, it will receive no recognition from the Government, thereby adding that the benefits and facilities to it will stop promptly.

"It is better that a legitimate body represents the cause of sportspersons than one simply masquerading as the real champion of Indian sports. Fairness and legitimacy needs to imbue all public affairs. Recalcitrant entities which defy adherence to rules of the game, while continuing to unjustly enjoy government‟s largesse and patronage, must be called-out," the Court added.

Also Read: Sports Administration Not A Male Preserve, Women Presence In Sporting World Must Be Acknowledged: Delhi High Court

Update: Supreme Court Orders Status Quo On Delhi HC Direction Placing Indian Olympic Association Under Committee Of Administrators

2. "Safe Harbour" Protection Available To Intermediaries Qua Criminal Prosecution Unless 'Active Role' Is Disclosed In Commission Of Offence: Delhi HC

Case Title: FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LTD. v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 783

The Delhi High Court has observed that unless an active role is disclosed in the commission of the offences as complained of, an intermediary would be entitled to claim protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The provision exempts liability of intermediary in certain cases. It states that an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it.

However, the provision will not apply if the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act.

3. Delhi High Court Modifies POCSO Conviction To Less Grave Offence, Orders Release As Convict's Imprisonment Exceeds Maximum Punishment

Case Title: MOHD AZIZUL v. STATE

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 784

The Delhi High Court has held that a man accused of sexually abusing a minor cannot be punished under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the offence of 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' when the alleged act falls short of 'penetration'.

The bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that without penetration, such act is only an attempt to rape or aggravated sexual assault as per Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 10 of the Act with 5-7 years imprisonment and fine.

The Court was dealing with an appeal against conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a three year old minor girl by one Mohd. Azizul. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years.

The bench noted that while there was sexual assault committed on the minor and the intent to commit rape was proved before the trial court, the statements of victim's mother and the MLC raised a doubt regarding penetration.

4. "Complete Reluctance On Police's Part": Delhi High Court Orders FIR Against BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain In Rape Case

Case Title: SYED SHAHNAWAZ HUSSAIN v. THE STATE & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 785

The Delhi High Court has ordered registration of FIR against BJP leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain in an alleged 2018 rape case observing that there was a complete reluctance on the part of city police to register the same.

Justice Asha Menon directed that the investigation in the matter be completed and a detailed report under Section 173 CrPC be submitted before the MM within a period of three months.

The Court dismissed the petition filed by the former Union Minister challenging the order of the Special Judge dated July 12, 2018 which had dismissed his revision petition against the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate directing registration of FIR.

Update: BJP Leader Syed Shahnawaz Hussain Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi HC Order For Registration Of FIR Against Him In 2018 Rape Case

5. Confessional Statement Of Co-Accused; Delhi High Court Quashes Charges Against Chartered Account For Being Speculative

Case Title: Vinod Kumar Kila v. CBI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 786

The Delhi High Court has quashed the charges framed against a Chartered Account for aiding his client in money laundering purely on the basis of confessional statements made by a co-accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

The Single Bench of Justice Asha Menon ruled that retracted statements made by a co-accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are inadequate to establish the participation in a conspiracy to facilitate commission of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The petitioner Vinod Kumar Kila filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court against the charges framed by the Special Judge, CBI under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.

6. Jahangirpuri Violence: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail, Says Accused Allegedly Tried To Create A "Rift Between Two Communities"

Case Title: SHEIKH ISHRAFIL v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 787

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday denied anticipatory bail to an accused in connection with the Jahangirpuri riots observing that his conduct was allegedly an "attempt to disturb the communal harmony of the area" by trying to create a "rift between two communities."

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma also noted that suspicious material was found on the terrace of his house during the riots and he had been non-cooperative during investigation. It observed:

"Ensuring peace and harmony in the country and communities is the most sacred duty of not only the law enforcing agencies and the Courts but duty has been caste on every citizen of this country that they should maintain peace and harmony and ensure that their acts do not instigate and promote communal hatred or ill-will."

The Court further noted that the accused was named by one of the eye witness as one of the perpetrator.

7. Maintenance Petition U/S 125 CrPC Covered By Res Judicata; Party Claiming Change In Circumstance Can't File Fresh Plea But Move U/S 127 CrPC: Delhi HC

Case Title: SUNITA & ANR. v. VIJAY PAL @ MOHD. SABIR & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 788

The Delhi High Court has observed that whenever a party claims a change in circumstance after an order granting maintenance has been passed under Section 125 CrPC, the appropriate recourse would be seeking relief under Section 127 of the Code, not filing a fresh petition under Section 125 of the Code.

Laying emphasis on the doctrine of res judicata, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the said principle has been evolved to prevent multiplicity of litigation regarding the same issues and puts an end to a finally adjudicated issue ensuring finality in litigation.

"This Court notes that a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. will be covered by the principle of res judicata due to its universal applicability, as proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are Quasi- Criminal in nature. Once the petition has been adjudicated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. favourably by a Court of competent jurisdiction on merits, a subsequent petition cannot be preferred which arises from the same dispute having similar situations, circumstances and grounds as the previously adjudicated issues in the earlier petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C."

8. State & Judiciary Burdened For 19 Yrs: Delhi High Court Quashes 2003 Cheating FIR Based On Compromise, Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Accused

Case Title: JOGINDER SINGH RAINA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 789

Quashing a 2003 cheating FIR after settlement between parties, the Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on a 77 year old accused, directing that the same be deposited in PM Cares Fund for welfare of children (PM CARES for Children Scheme).

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma quashed an FIR registered under sec. 328, 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 506 and 120B of Indian Penal Code on the accused's plea, who was facing trial in the case for last 19 years.

While a co accused had died, the Court was informed that the matter was amicably settled between the petitioner and the 60 year old complainant after 19 years. The complainant informed the Court that she had received Rs. 32 lakhs as full and final settlement amount and had no objection if the FIR was quashed.

9. Every Pregnant Woman Deserves Dignity, Giving Birth In Custody Traumatic For Both Mother & Child: Delhi High Court

Case Title: KAJAL v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 790

Observing that every pregnant female deserves dignity during motherhood, the Delhi High Court has granted three months interim bail to a pregnant undertrial prisoner who was expecting her delivery in jail.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also added that pregnancy of a woman is a special circumstance which needs to be appreciated as giving birth to a child while in custody, would not only be a trauma to the mother but also create an everlasting adverse impact on the child, whenever questioned about his birth.

"Every pregnant female deserves the dignity enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India during motherhood. The Court is expected to take note of interest of a child, who is not expected to be exposed to the prisons, until and unless there is a grave danger in releasing the petitioner on bail," the Court said.

10. Satyendar Jain Cannot Be Declared Person With Unsound Mind Or Disqualified From Delhi Legislative Assembly Under Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Ashish Kumar Srivastava v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 791

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to declare AAP leader Satyendar Jain as a person of 'unsound mind' thereby seeking his disqualification from the Delhi Legislative Assembly.

Jain is presently in judicial custody in a money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate.

A division bench comprising of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad was of the view that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court cannot declare Jain as a person with unsound mind and cannot disqualify him from being a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Minister in the Government of NCT of Delhi.

Other Important Updates

1. Allopathy Doctors' Suit: High Court Asks Baba Ramdev To Not Mislead Public, Preserve Ayurveda's Esteem

The Delhi High Court this week told Baba Ramdev that while he is welcome to have followers and people who believe in what he says, however, the public at large must not be mislead by making statements against allopathy. The court also asked the yoga guru to refrain from saying anything more than what was official, while speaking in favour of Patanjali's product Coronil.

Expressing concern over the interest of public at large, Justice Anup J. Bhambhani further opined that the good name and reputation of ayurveda must not be destroyed in any manner.

" As I've said from the very beginning, my concern is only one. You are welcome to have your followers, you're welcome to have your disciples, you're welcome to have people who will believe whatever you say. But please do not mislead the public at large by saying what is more than what the official…," Justice Bhambhani remarked orally.

Also Read: Baba Ramdev's Statement On US President Joe Biden Contracting Covid-19 May Affect India's Relations With Foreign Nations: Delhi High Court

2. "Need Of The Hour": Delhi High Court Calls For Advertisement Of Special Cells Constituted For Protection Of Inter-Faith Couples

The Delhi High Court has called for sensitisation and advertisement of district special cells constituted in the city for providing protection to the inter-faith married couples, observing that it was the "need of the hour" to do so.

Justice Jasmeet Singh was dealing with a plea filed by NGO Dhanak of Humanity which was approached by an inter-faith couple, seeking shelter in a safe house.

The couple claimed that they were facing threat from their families and alleged that they were facing difficulty in getting a rented accommodation in the city. The couple had married in March last year under the Special Marriage Act against the wishes of their parents.