The petitioner was appointed as a lower division clerk on compassionate grounds after her husband’s death. But, when her marksheet was sent for verification to the Board of Secondary Education, MP, it was found that her marksheet was forged. The trial court framed charges against her. The petitioner challenged the order contending that such charges ought not to have been made against her. Disagreeing with her stand, the Rajasthan High Court said there was prima facie evidence against her (Hemantalata vs State of Rajasthan).
In a land dispute case involving offences under Sections 436, 294, 506, 427, 379, 323, 34 of the IPC, the petitioners applied for quashing of proceedings, saying that the parties had reached a compromise. The state contended that since some of the offences were non-compoundable, even if there had been a compromise, the court could not give effect to it by invoking its inherent jurisdiction. Quashing the proceedings, the high court held that since the parties had settled the dispute, chances of conviction were bleak (Sasanka and others vs State of Orissa).
A labourer died when he fell down a makeshift construction in a building. His brother lodged a complaint against the contractor who was chargesheeted thereafter. The magistrate ordered an investigation into the owners’ role, observing that the building agreement said nothing about who would be responsible for any such offence. The trial court summoned the owners under Section 304A of the IPC and held that they were obligated to ensure the safety of their workers. But the Delhi High Court held that since the contractor was supervising the construction, he was responsible for his employees’ safety (Gulijeet Singh Kochar and another vs State).
SOLON
