The Court held that Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Places Disfigurement (Prevention) Act, 1981, which penalises unauthorised disfigurement by advertisement, was not attracted in this case.
Last week, the Supreme Court pronounced few judgments making important observations related to the jurisprudence surrounding the quashing of the FIR either under Section 482 (the inherent powers) of.
A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and PD Naik observed that merely because the aggrieved was granting her consent to quash, would not be sufficient ground to quash the FIR.
The Delhi High Court has observed that the act of pressing rape charges in matrimonial cases by the complainant against the husband and his family members which are later settled needs to be curbed..