Bombay HC: Order granting anticipatory bail to accused persons - It is interlocutory order and no revision lies against that order

In the case of Amar Nath and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, the Apex Court has clearly held that "passing order for bail" is an interlocutory order and, therefore, there can hardly be any controversy in this regard. The impugned order dated 13-8-1998 is undoubtedly an order of grant of bail and, therefore, falls within the ambit and category of interlocutory order and in view of bar created by Section 397(2) of the Code, the High Court is precluded from exercising its revisional powers in this regard, which ultimately results in rendering revision against such interlocutory order not maintainable. I must, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection raised by Shri Pendsey, learned Counsel for the non-applicants and further hold that all the above referred four revisions filed by the State as well as complainant are not maintainable against the impugned order of grant of bail, dated 13-8-1998. {Para 11}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

D.D. SINHA, J.

The State Of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay S/O Moreshwar Damle & Ors.,

Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 182 of 1998

4th March, 1999

Citation:  1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1127

Print Page

Bombay HC: Revision Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Granting Bail

 From the above referred observations, it is evident that theterm ‘interlocutory order’ used in sub section 2 of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. covers the challenge made to the orders for bail. {Para 17}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.678 OF 2024

Raju Anna Chaughule  V/s. The State Of Maharashtra 

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATE : 22ND OCTOBER, 2024.

Print Page

Calcutta HC: Whether plaintiff must issue legal notice before filing civil suit for recovering damages for defamation?

10. In that view of the matter Mr. Dutt's submission that a letter of demand by the Solicitor was not condition precedent before filing a civil suit for damage for defamation, is irrelevant. Normally and almost universally the practice in a civil suit for defamation is a prior Solicitor's letter demanding damage or apology or both. It is a normal, natural and conventional part of the civil law and procedure of defamation. In strict law the Solicitor's demand is not a condition precedent for a suit for defamation claiming damages, but it is only a natural and appropriate step to take to notify a person that he will be faced with a suit for damage for a particular amount unless he apologizes or unless e does certain things. In the absence of such a notice the question of motive and question of cost in a suit for damage may become important. In some of the Canadian Provinces it is a condition precedent to an action for newspaper libel that the plaintiff shall give the defendant notice in writing specifying the particular statements of which he complains. No doubt, such is not the law here in India. From that point of view it cannot be said in India that the letter of demand is a condition precedent to an action for damages for defamation in a civil suit. Rut the letter of demand in a civil suit for damages for defamation is almost a universal practice in India. In fact, Gatley on Libel and Slander, Fourth Edition at page 432 speaking of English law on the point, which is more like the law in India than Canada on the point, observed:

'No such notice is requisite under our law. It is however, always advisable to give the defendant an opportunity before writ to withdraw and apologise. Such a letter will help to show that the plaintiff's real object is to vindicate his character and not merely to make money out of the attack. Moreover, a refusal to withdraw and express regret for statements that are without foundation is a matter which the jury, may take into consideration in assessing damages. And, if the reply to the demand for an apology be a letter of abuse or reiteration of the charge, such letter will materially strengthen the plaintiffs case if malice is an issue in the action." This is the common sense justification of the universal practice of Solicitor's letter of demand before filing a civil suit for damages for defamation and its essential raison d'etre. Mr. Dutt's submission apparently was that if a notice for a suit for defamation was not necessary then to give a notice of such a character while a criminal proceeding is pending, invariably constitutes contempt of such criminal proceeding. In the view that we have taken we are unable to accept that unqualified submission. {Para 10}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 206 and 214 of 1965

Decided On: 28.02.1966

Asoke Kumar Sarkar and Ors. Vs. Radha Kanto Pandey and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.B. Mukharji and A.K. Das, JJ.

Author: P.B. Mukharji, J.

Citations: AIR1967 CAL178, 1967CRILJ455,  MANU/WB/0054/1967

Print Page

Supreme court: Complaint U/S 138 of NI Act can Be Amended Even After Cognizance Is Taken

 The issue, whether a criminal court has power to order

amendment of a complaint filed under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.,

is no longer res integra. In S.R. Sukumar v. S.Sunaad Raghuram (2015) 9 SCC 609, this Court held as under:-

“19. What is discernible from U.P. Pollution Control Board

case is that an easily curable legal infirmity could be cured

by means of a formal application for amendment. If the

amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity

which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by

allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to

the other side, notwithstanding the fact that there is no

enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such

amendment, the court may permit such an amendment to be

made. On the contrary, if the amendment sought to be made

in the complaint does not relate either to a curable infirmity

or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or

if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the

court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint.”

Hence, it is fallacious to contend that in no circumstance can

amendments to complaints be allowed after cognizance is taken.

{Para 8}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.15699 OF 2024)

Bansal Milk Chilling Centre  Vs Rana Milk Food Private Ltd. & Anr. 

Author: K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 899

Dated: 25th July, 2025.

Print Page