Allahabad HC: Direction For Re-Recording Of Victim's Statement U/S 183 BNSS Can Be Given Only In 'Exceptional Circumstances

Ordinarily no routine direction for second statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. can be given but under exceptional circumstances. High Court in exercise of it’s extraordinary jurisdiction, if justified to rectify injustice, may issue directions for recording second statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. but it cannot be exercised as a general rule where victim alleges that her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was not read over to her or that she was not given an opportunity to confirm its correctness. The High Court can in appropriate cases exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to direct a fresh recording of statement before the Magistrate and the power is not a routine or an automatic power but is exercised by High Court or Supreme Court to prevent abuse of process, to secure ends of justice or rectify grave procedural irregularities that could lead to miscarriage of justice.{Para 16}

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3822 of 2026

Kirti Verma Vs  State of U.P.

HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.

HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

Per: Hon’ble Achal Sachdev, J.

Judgement Delivered on 26.02.2026

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether Motor accident claim tribunal should allow amendment of claim petition from S 166 of MV Act to S 163A of MV Act if income of petitioner exceeds 40000/ per annum?

 The Court is very much conscious of the fact that the merits of the proposed amendment cannot be looked into. The fact, however, remains that no fruitful purpose would be served by granting alternative prayer. Even this Court takes his petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and proceed to grant relief, the petitioner would not be entitled to any compensation therein in view of his income being more than double the ceiling of Rs. 40,000/- per annum at the relevant time.

9. Be that as it may. In view of the cap of income of Rs. 40,000/- per annum for grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and the petitioner's annual income from salary being Rs. 84,000/- per annum, plus Rs. 24,000/- per annum as an agricultural income in the year 1997, the petitioner would not be entitled to prefer a claim under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The alternative prayer cannot be considered favorably.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 69 of 2007

Decided On: 08.02.2022

Bhausaheb Vs. Shamrao N. Kulat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.G. Avachat, J.

Citation: 2022 ACJ 2105,MANU/MH/0371/2022

Print Page

Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against 85-Yr-Old For 'Inverted' Display Of Indian Flag; Says 'Intention To Insult' Essential Under National Honour Act

Neither the statement

of Deepak Jaysingh nor any material collected by the

prosecution on record indicates that the Applicant

hoisted or displayed the Indian National Flag, or was

involved in its display, on 26.01.2017. Similarly, there is

no material on record to show that any act of the

Applicant was intended to insult or show disrespect to

the honour of the Indian National Flag. To constitute the

offence under Section 2(4) (l), the display of the Indian

National Flag in an inverted manner must be

intentional. Thus, mens rea to cause insult or disrespect,

or to bring the Indian National Flag into contempt,

would be required.

15. Even if the allegations in the FIR and the evidence

collected are accepted as true and correct, it does not

appear that the Applicant displayed the Indian National

Flag with the saffron down, much less that the Applicant

had any such intention. The Applicant’s mere presence

at the place of hoisting of the Flag, as alleged, would not

amount to an offence under Section 2(4) (l) of the

Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2026

 V. K. Narayanan Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2026

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9262

Print Page

Bombay HC: It is not permissible to add the Judge who has decided the case as party respondent while challenging order passed by him

Thus, it can be safely said that an attempt in

joining judge who passed impunged order as party respondent

in these Appeals is not only aimed at pressurising him but also

to caution other judges not to pass order against him or they

would also face similar fate. Most importantly permitting such

impleadment will take away the essence of the judicial

system, wherein the judges are required to live the oath of

discharging duties without fear.

Registry is directed not to register any Appeal, wherein

judicial officer is made party Respondent and in any such

cases, objection be raised with regard to maintainability of

Appeal. This order be circulated to all Appellate Courts in

State of Maharashtra, for its compliance. {Para 16}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 754 OF 2025

Jagannath Prasad Shoke

 Vs State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent No.1

Shri P. P. Muley Special Judge appointed under Section

14(1) of SC/ST POA Act Addl. District & Session Court

Kalyan (West) 421301. ...Respondent No.2

CORAM R. M. JOSHI, J.

DATED: 27th JANUARY 2026

Print Page