Shamima Begum cannot return to the UK, Supreme Court rules

SHAMIMA BEGUM cannot return to the UK to pursue an appeal against the removal of her British citizenship, the Supreme Court has ruled.

Ms Begum (pictured) was 15 when she and two other east London schoolgirls travelled to Syria to join the so-called Daesh in February 2015.

Her British citizenship was revoked on national security grounds shortly after she was found, nine months pregnant, in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019.

Ms Begum, now 21, is challenging the Home Office’s decision to remove her British citizenship and wants to be allowed to return to the UK to pursue her appeal.

In July last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that 'the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal'.

The Home Office challenged that decision at the Supreme Court in November, arguing that allowing her to return to the UK 'would create significant national security risks' and expose the public to 'an increased risk of terrorism'.

Today, the UK’s highest court ruled that Ms Begum should not be granted leave to enter the UK to pursue her appeal against the deprivation of her British citizenship.

Announcing the decision, Lord Reed said: 'The Supreme Court unanimously allows all of the Home Secretary’s appeals and dismisses Ms Begum’s cross-appeal.'

In the court’s written ruling, Lord Reed said: 'It is, of course, true that a deprivation decision may have serious consequences for the person in question: although she cannot be rendered stateless, the loss of her British citizenship may nevertheless have a profound effect upon her life, especially where her alternative nationality is one with which she has little real connection.

Centre Finalizes Draft Rules For Regulation of Social Media Intermediaries, OTT Platforms & Online Media

The Central Government on Thursday announced the Draft Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to regulate the social media intermediaries, OTT platforms and online news and current affairs websites.

The Rules prescribing a Code of Ethics and a three-tier content regulation mechanism have been framed under the decades old Information Technology Act, 2000. They will come into force when notified in the Official Gazette.

Code of Ethics in Relation to Digital/Online Media

The Code of Ethics shall inter alia apply to publishers of online curated content and intermediaries.

It stipulates that an applicable entity shall exercise due caution and shall take into consideration the following factors, when deciding to feature any content on its platform:

Content which affects the sovereignty and integrity of India;

Content which threatens, endangers or jeopardizes the security of the State;

Content which is detrimental to India's friendly relations with foreign countries.

India's multi-racial and multi-religious context.

Activities, beliefs, practices, or views of any racial or religious group in India.

The Ministry shall establish an online Grievance Portal, as the central repository for receiving and processing all grievances from the public in respect of the Code of Ethics

Three-tier grievance redressal framework for news sites and OTT platforms

For ensuring adherence to the abovesaid Code of Ethics and for addressing the grievances thereof, the Government has proposed a three-tier structure as under:

Level I - Self-regulation by the applicable entity

An applicable entity shall establish appoint an India based Grievance Redressal Officer, for redressal of grievances. He shall act as the nodal point for interaction with the complainant, the self-regulating body and the Ministry.

The applicable entity shall address the grievance and inform the complainant of its decision within 15 days.

Level II — Self-regulation by the self-regulating bodies of the applicable entities

All applicable entities shall come together to form an independent "Self-Regulatory Body" that shall be headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court, appointed from a panel prepared by the Ministry.

The Body will further comprise of maximum six members, being experts from the field of media, broadcasting, technology and entertainment.

This Body shall perform the following functions:

Oversee and ensure adherence to the Code of Ethics

Provide guidance to such entities on various aspects of the Code of Ethics

Address grievances that have not been resolved by such entities within the stipulated period of 15 days

Hear appeals filed by the complainant against the decision of such entities

Issue advisories to entities for ensuring compliance to the Code of Ethics

While disposing a grievance or an appeal, the Self-regulatory Body shall have the following powers:

Issue warning, censure, admonish or reprimand such entity

Require an apology by such entity

Require such entity to include a warning card or a disclaimer

Further, in case the Body is of opinion that there is a need for taking of action in relation to the complaint under Section 69A of the IT Act, refer such complaint to the Oversight Mechanism.

Level III - Oversight mechanism by the Central Government

Where the applicable entity fails to comply with the advisories of the self-regulating body, the latter shall refer the matter to the Oversight Mechanism within prescribed time.

The Oversight Mechanism with have the following functions-

Publish a charter, including Codes of Practices, for self-regulating bodies

Develop the Grievance portal for prompt disposal of the grievances

Establish an Inter-Departmental Committee for hearing grievances

Refer to the Inter-Departmental Committee grievances arising out of the decision of the self-regulating body or where no decision has been taken by the self-regulating body within the stipulated time period

Inter-Departmental Committee

The IT Ministry shall constitute an Inter-Departmental Committee consisting of representatives from:

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Ministry of Women and Child Development

Ministry of Law and Justice

Ministry of Home Affairs

Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology

Ministry of External Affairs

Ministry of Defence

Indian Computer Emergency Response Team

Such other Ministries and Organizations, including domain experts, that it may decide.

The functions of this Committee shall include hearing complaints regarding violation or contravention of the Code of Ethics by an applicable entity —

arising out of grievances in respect of decisions taken at Level I or II, including where no such decision is taken within the time specified

Suo Motu if in the opinion of the Committee such hearing is necessary, for reasons to be recorded in writing

Referred to it by the Ministry.

It shall then make its recommendations to the Ministry as under :

Issue warning, censure, admonish or reprimand such entity

Require an apology by such entity

Require such entity to include a warning card or a disclaimer

Due diligence to be observed by Intermediaries

Rule 4 of the 2021 Draft Rules provides 16-due diligence rules to be followed by intermediaries in India.

Further, all intermediaries shall be required to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer who shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act. he shall also act as a nodal person of contact for 24x7 coordination with law enforcement agencies and officers to ensure compliance to their orders or requisitions made in accordance with the provisions of law.

Denying a person right to choose spouse based on caste is violative of fundamental rights, the Himachal Pradesh High Court

Read Judgment

Suppressing or oppressing freedom of an individual, that too which is contrary not only to his/her spiritual and religious rights but also constitutional rights is to be deprecated, the Court said.

"We are living in a State governed by the Constitution and discrimination on the basis of caste by denying of right to choose spouse, is in violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India," the Court said.

 "Ms. Komal has refuted the allegations of her ill mental health with further submission that she was slapped brutally on 2.2.2021 at Jawalaji and thereafter she was beaten and administered some injection and forcibly taken to Mental Health Specialist on 3.2.2021 and 10.2.2021. She has further stated that she is not having any mental health problem and that she is a student and has appeared in BBA Final Year Examination a few months ago." the Court noted.

 

Google's definition of not including bum as 'private part' may not be acceptable in Indian context: Mumbai Court convicts man under POCSO

The definition of "private part" has to be interpreted as per the social context, a Special Court dealing with cases pertaining to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act said convicting a person for committing sexual assault under Sections 354, 354A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. (State of Maharashtra v. Sahar Ali Shaikh)

The designated POCSO judge MA Baraliya had to consider whether the act of "touching the bums" of the victim by the accused would constitute an offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.

Clarifying that “the term private part is to be interpreted into the context what is meant by it in our society,” the Court held that Google’s definition of not including bum in private part may not be an acceptable interpretation as far as Indians are concerned.

Banks Duty-Bound To Exercise Due Diligence In Maintaining And Operating Their Locker Facility: Supreme Court Issues Guidelines

READ JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court observed that the banks owe a duty of care to exercise due diligence in maintaining and operating their locker or safety deposit systems and that they cannot contract out of the minimum standard of care in this regard.

The banks cannot wash off their hands and claim that they bear no liability towards their customers for the operation of the locker. the bench comprising Justices Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Vineet Saran said while directing the Reserve Bank of India to lay down Rules and Regulations mandating the steps to be taken by banks with respect to locker facility/safe deposit facility management.

Until such regulations are framed and issued by the RBI, the bench observed that the following guidelines have to be followed by the bank

Irrespective of the value of the articles placed inside the locker, the bank is under a separate obligation to ensure that proper procedures are followed while allotting and operating the lockers:

(a) This includes maintenance of a locker register and locker key register.

(b) The locker register shall be consistently updated in case of any change in the allotment.

(c) The bank shall notify the original locker holder prior to any changes in the allotment of the locker, and give them a reasonable opportunity to withdraw the articles deposited by them if they so wish.

(d) Banks may consider utilizing appropriate technologies, such as blockchain technology which is meant for creating digital ledger for this purpose.

(e) The custodian of the bank shall additionally maintain a record of access to the lockers, containing details of all the parties who have accessed the lockers and the date and time on which they were opened and closed. (f) The bank employees are also obligated to check whether the lockers are properly closed on a regular basis. If the same is not done, the locker must be immediately closed and the locker holder shall be promptly intimated so that they may verify any resulting discrepancy in the contents of the locker.

(g) The concerned staff shall also check that the keys to the locker are in proper condition.

(h) In case the lockers are being operated through an electronic system, the bank shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the system is protected against hacking or any breach of security.

(i) The customers' personal data, including their biometric data, cannot be shared with third parties without their consent. The relevant rules under the Information Technology Act, 2000 will be applicable in this regard.

(j) The bank has the power to break open the locker only in accordance with the relevant laws and RBI regulations if any. Breaking open of the locker in a manner other than that prescribed under law is an illegal act that amounts to gross deficiency of service on the part of the bank as a service provider.

(k) Due notice in writing shall be given to the locker holder at a reasonable time prior to the breaking open of the locker. Moreover, the locker shall be broken open only in the presence of authorized officials and an independent witness after giving due notice to the locker holder. The bank must prepare a detailed inventory of any articles found inside the locker, after the locker is opened, and make a separate entry in the locker register, before returning them to the locker holder. The locker holder's signature should be obtained upon the receipt of such inventory so as to avoid any dispute in the future.

(l) The bank must undertake proper verification procedures to ensure that no unauthorized party gains access to the locker. In case the locker remains inoperative for a long period of time, and the locker holder cannot be located, the banks shall transfer the contents of the locker to their nominees/legal heirs or dispose of the articles in a transparent manner, in accordance with the directions issued by the RBI in this regard.

(m) The banks shall also take necessary steps to ensure that the space in which the locker facility is located is adequately guarded at all times.

(n) A copy of the locker hiring agreement, containing the relevant terms and conditions, shall be given to the customer at the time of allotment of the locker so that they are intimated of their rights and responsibilities.

(o) The bank cannot contract out of the minimum standard of care with respect to maintaining the safety of the lockers as outlined supra.

The bench issued these directives while disposing an appeal against a judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In this case, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking a direction to United Bank of India to return the seven ornaments that were in the locker; or alternatively pay Rs. 3,00,000/­ towards the cost of jewelry, and compensation for damages. The Forum directed the bank to return the entire contents of the locker, or alternatively pay the complainant Rs. 3,00,000/­ towards cost of the jewelry and, Rs. 50,000/­ as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and cost of litigation. In appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, though accepted the District Commission's findings on the question of deficiency of service, reduced the compensation from Rs. 50,000/­ to Rs. 30,000/­ and further observed that the dispute on the contents of the locker can only be decided upon provision of elaborate evidence. NCDRC upheld this order of the State Commission.

The appeal before the Apex Court filed by the appellant raised these issues: First, Whether the Bank owes a duty of care to the locker holder under the laws of bailment or any other law with respect to the contents of the locker? Whether the same can be effectively adjudicated in the course of consumer dispute proceedings? Second, irrespective of the answer to the previous issue, whether the Bank owes an independent duty of care to its customers with respect to diligent management and operation of the locker, separate from its contents? Whether compensation can be awarded for non­compliance with such duty?

The bench did not answer the first issue conclusively. It upheld the NCDRC finding that the complainant must file a separate suit before the competent civil court for seeking this relief and for proving that the missing items were actually in the custody of the bank. The court said that all questions of fact and law are left open before the civil court to decide on the merits of the case, including as to whether the law of bailment is applicable, or any other law as the case may be.

On the second issue, the bench observed that Banks as service providers under the earlier Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as well as the newly enacted Consumer Protection Act, 2019, owe a separate duty of care to exercise due diligence in maintaining and operating their locker or safety deposit systems

"It appears to us that the present state of regulations on the subject of locker management is inadequate and muddled. Each bank is following its own set of procedures and there is no uniformity in the rules. Further, going by their stand before the consumer fora, it seems that the banks are under the mistaken impression that not having knowledge of the contents of the locker exempts them from liability for failing to secure the lockers in themselves as well. In as much as we are the highest Court of the country, we cannot allow the litigation between the bank and locker holders to continue in this vein. This will lead to a state of anarchy wherein the banks will routinely commit lapses in proper management of the lockers, leaving it to the hapless customers to bear the costs. Hence, we find it imperative that this Court lays down certain principles which will ensure that the banks follow due diligence in operating their locker facilities, until the issuance of comprehensive guidelines in this regard.", the court said.

While disposing the appeal, the bench also observed that the banks cannot wash off their hands and claim that they bear no liability towards their customers for the operation of the locker. It observed:

Before concluding, we would like to make a few observations on the importance of the subject matter of the present appeal. With the advent of globalization, banking institutions have acquired a very significant role in the life of the common man. Both domestic and international economic transactions within the country have increased multiple folds. Given that we are steadily moving towards a cashless economy, people are hesitant to keep their liquid assets at home as was the case earlier. Thus, as is evident from the rising demand for such services, lockers have become an essential service provided by every banking institution. Such services may be availed of by citizens as well as by foreign nationals. Moreover, due to rapid gains in technology, we are now transitioning from dual key operated lockers to electronically operated lockers. In the latter system, though the customer may have partial access to the locker through passwords or ATM pin, etc., they are unlikely to possess the technological know­how to control the operation of such lockers. On the other hand, there is the possibility that miscreants may manipulate the technologies used in these systems to gain access to the lockers without the customers' knowledge or consent. Thus the customer is completely at the mercy of the bank, which is the more resourceful party, for the protection of their assets. In such a situation, the banks cannot wash off their hands and claim that they bear no liability towards their customers for the operation of the locker. The very purpose for which the customer avails of the locker hiring facility is so that they may rest assured that their assets are being properly taken care of. Such actions of the banks would not only violate the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, but also damage investor confidence and harm our reputation as an emerging economy.

The court also directed RBI to lay down comprehensive directions mandating the steps to be taken by banks with respect to locker facility/safe deposit facility management.

Thus it is necessary that the RBI lays down comprehensive directions mandating the steps to be taken by banks with respect to locker facility/safe deposit facility management. The banks should not have the liberty to impose unilateral and unfair terms on the consumers. In view of the same, we direct the RBI to issue suitable rules or regulations as aforesaid within six months from the date of this judgment. Until such Rules are issued, the principles stated in this judgment, in general and at para in particular, shall remain binding upon the banks which are providing locker or safe deposit facilities. It is also left open to the RBI to issue suitable rules with respect to the responsibility owed by banks for any loss or damage to the contents of the lockers, so that the controversy on this issue is clarified as well.

CASE: Amitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3966 OF 2010]

No Recovery Should Be Made At The Time Of Search/Inspection Under Any Circumstances: Gujarat High Court Directs GST Officials

In a crucial order, the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday (16^th February) directed the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs as well as the Chief Commissioner of Central/State Tax of the State of Gujarat, inter alia, to make no recovery in any mode at the time of search/inspection proceedings under Section 67 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 under any circumstances.

The Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice I. J. Vora issued this interim direction following various complaints of coercive recovery by GST officials during the search operations.

Since the officers of the afore-mentioned departments who were asked to join the video conference did join, but at a very later stage, they were unable to witness the discussion that took place between the Court and Devang Vyas (Additional Solicitor General of India), the Court passed an interim order issuing the following directions: -

• Even if the assessee comes forward to make voluntary payment by filing Form DRC­03, the assessee should be asked/ advised to file such Form DRC­03 on the next day after the end of search proceedings and after the officers of the visiting team have left the premises of the assessee. 
• The facility of filing complaint/ grievance after the end of search proceedings should be made available to the assessee if the assessee was forced to make payment in any mode during the pendency of the search proceedings. 
• If complaint/ grievance is filed by assessee and the officer is found to have acted in defiance of the afore­stated directions, then  strict disciplinary action should be initiated against the concerned officer.

Supreme Court Registers Suo Moto Criminal Contempt Case Against Journalist Rajdeep Sardesai Over Tweets Against Judiciary

The Supreme Court has registered a suo moto criminal contempt case against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai on a complaint filed by one Aastha Khurana alleging that some of his tweets scandalized judiciary.
In September 2020, the Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal, had refused sanction to initiate criminal contempt on the same complaint.
Following the refusal of the AG's sanction, the petitioner filed a fresh petition directly in the Supreme Court, which was registered as a suo moto criminal contempt case on February 9.

The petitioner referred to a tweet from 31.08.2020, wherein Sardesai had remarked saying "Clearly, court looking to wriggle out of an embarrassment of its own making", in the context of the Re. 1 fine imposed on Prashant Bhushan in his contempt case.
Another tweet from 14.08.2020 was also highlighted wherein it is stated that Sardesai compared the judgment in Prashant Bhushan's case to Habeas Corpus petitions of those detained in Kashmir.


Further reference is made to a tweet which was posted on 23.07.2020 and allegedly cast aspersions on (Retd.) Justice Arun Mishra. Though the tweet was later deleted, elaborates the petition, it received "huge media publicity" and "questioned the fairness" of the Court.
Such attacks on this Hon'ble Court is not a freedom of speech and expression, but it has done purposely in order to defame and disrespect the image of the Court", contends the petitioner.
Also Read - Toolkit Case: Bombay High Court Reserves Orders For Tomorrow On Adv Nikita Jacob's Transit Bail Plea

The Petitioner went on to submit that Sardesai is a "well known personally and various people take his statement as true and correct, therefore his statement on the top judicial body of his country indicates a threat to the society, which will lead to no trust in the judiciary and the justice will never deliver to the people because they will look at this Hon'ble Court with a questionable eye and all the respect of this prestigious institution will vanish."
The Supreme Court has registered a suo moto criminal contempt case against journalist Rajdeep Sardesai on a complaint filed by one Aastha Khurana alleging that some of his tweets scandalized judiciary.
In September 2020, the Attorney General for India, KK Venugopal, had refused sanction to initiate criminal contempt on the same complaint.

The petitioner referred to a tweet from 31.08.2020, wherein Sardesai had remarked saying "Clearly, court looking to wriggle out of an embarrassment of its own making", in the context of the Re. 1 fine imposed on Prashant Bhushan in his contempt case.
Another tweet from 14.08.2020 was also highlighted wherein it is stated that Sardesai compared the judgment in Prashant Bhushan's case to Habeas Corpus petitions of those detained in Kashmir.

Further reference is made to a tweet which was posted on 23.07.2020 and allegedly cast aspersions on (Retd.) Justice Arun Mishra. Though the tweet was later deleted, elaborates the petition, it received "huge media publicity" and "questioned the fairness" of the Court.
Such attacks on this Hon'ble Court is not a freedom of speech and expression, but it has done purposely in order to defame and disrespect the image of the Court", contends the petitioner.
Also Read - Toolkit Case: Bombay High Court Reserves Orders For Tomorrow On Adv Nikita Jacob's Transit Bail Plea

Public project because of objections on communal lines cannot be accepted: Madras High Court

Read Judgment 

Stalling a public project because of objections raised on communal lines cannot be accepted and would set an unacceptable precedent, the Madras High Court observed last week while ordering the completion of a bridge along the Thattankulam Kanmai channel (M Muthupandi v. The District Collector, Madurai District and ors).

The Court observed, 

"A benefit cannot be denied on the sole ground that it is being opposed by persons belonging to some other community. The project has been contemplated and conceded to facilitate to the needs of the general public. Holding up the project in view of the objections raised on communal line can never be accepted and it would be an unacceptable precedent."

HIT AND RUN FATAL RS. 2,00,000 & SERIOUS INJURY RS.50,000

HIT AND RUN GET RS.2,00,000.00 FOR FATAL ACCIDENT AND SERIOUS INJURY GET RS.50,000.00

161. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having the force of law, the Central Government shall provide for paying in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the scheme made under sub-section (3), compensation in respect of the death of, or grievous hurt to, persons resulting from hit and run motor accidents.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the scheme made under sub-section (3), there shall be paid as compensation,—

(a) in respect of the death of any person resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a fixed sum of two lakh rupees or such higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government;

(b) in respect of grievous hurt to any person resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees or such higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(3) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make a scheme specifying the manner in which the scheme shall be administered by the Central Government or General Insurance Council, the form, manner and the time within which applications for compensation may be made, the officers or authorities to whom such applications may be made, the procedure to be followed by such officers or authorities for considering and passing orders on such applications, and all other matters connected with, or incidental to, the administration of the scheme and the payment of compensation under this section.

Akhtar falsely represents himself as Shiva; forges marriage certificate with Hindu girl: Delhi High Court refuses to quash FIR

The Delhi High Court has refused to quash an FIR alleging that one Akhtar falsely represented himself as Shiva and had a physical relationship with a Hindu girl on promise of marriage (Akhtar vs State).

The order was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad in a petition by the accused for quashing of the FIR pursuant to an amicable settlement between the parties. 

"A reading of the allegations in the FIR and the Status Report, it is evident that the petitioner has been accused of serious offences like rape and forgery having a bearing on vital societal interest and these offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but rather will have an effect on the society at large. In crimes which seriously endangers the well being of the society, it is not safe to leave the crime doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably," the Court said. 

As per the Complainant (a Hindu girl), when the accused met her, he claimed his name was Shiva. It was stated that the accused promised that he would marry her and they became physically intimate.

The Complainant stated that it was only later that she came to know that the accused's real name was Akhtar. 

She stated in the FIR that the accused took her to Arya Samaj Mandir and they both got married there. In the marriage certificate, the accused gave his name as Akhtar, it was stated. 

After the marriage, the accused started demanding money and when the girl visited his parents, she was driven away by them.

Subsequently, an FIR for the commission of offences under Sections 419, 467, 471, 474, 376 354,506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the accused. 

The accused filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the FIR on the ground that the Complainant had pardoned him and they were willing to lead their marital life peacefully.

The Court noted that as per the status report filed by the Police, the Complainant had supported the allegations in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

It was further noted that the accused had "hid his identity", was "sexually exploiting" the Complainant for five years and had even forged Aadhaar Cards as he had one in the name of Akhtar and a second one in the name of Shiva. 

The marriage certificate from the Trust was also found to be a fake one, the Court added. 

The Court stated that although the power to quash proceedings in non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC was recognised, the same had to be differentiated from the power of compounding offences under Section 320 CrPC.

Discussing a series of case laws on quashing of FIRs in non-compoundable offences, the Court stated that the guiding factor for the High Court in such cases is to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of any court.

Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the Court thus opined, 

"An offence of rape is an offence against the society at large and apart from offence under Section 376, the petitioner is also accused of committing offences under Sections 419,467,468,471,474,506 and 34 IPC.

This Court is not in a position to quash the FIR on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties and wherein it is stated that the petitioner/accused and the respondent No.2/complaint have decided to stay as husband and wife and lead their peaceful marital life."

The Court stated that the present case was not of one of a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife for the reason that the accused had not married the Complainant. 

"The marriage certificate is found to be fake one and in any event, the petitioner could not have married the respondent No.2/complainant in Arya Samaj Mandir according to the Hindu Vedic Rites and Customs."

Stating that serious offences like rape and forgery have a bearing on vital societal interest and were not private, the Court dismissed the petition for quashing of FIR.