TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court quashes FIR against Ugandan nationals accused of criminal offenses, upholding liberty under Article 21.</h1> <h3>Isaac Isanga Musumba and Ors. Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors.</h3> Isaac Isanga Musumba and Ors. Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. - 2013 (7) SCALE 569, (2014) 15 SCC 357 Issues involved: Writ petition u/s Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing FIR u/s 384, 441, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.The Supreme Court, in the judgment delivered by A.K. Patnaik and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ., addressed the issues raised by the petitioners, nationals of Uganda, who sought the quashing of FIR KIR No. 88 of 2013 registered at MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai. The FIR accused them of offenses u/s 384, 441, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Extortion Offense (u/s 384 IPC): The Court analyzed the FIR and highlighted that for the offense of extortion u/s 383 IPC to be established, the delivery of property following a threat is essential. Since no property was delivered to the accused as per the complaint, the Court concluded that the offense of extortion was not made out, and the registration of the FIR u/s 384 IPC was unjustified.Criminal Trespass (u/s 441 IPC): The judgment further examined the allegation of criminal trespass u/s 441 IPC, emphasizing that the intent to commit an offense or to intimidate, insult, or annoy is a crucial element. Given the existence of a business transaction between the accused and the complainants, the Court determined that the accusation of criminal trespass was unfounded.Criminal Conspiracy (u/s 120B IPC): The Court clarified that for the offense of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B IPC to apply, there must be an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act. Since the offenses u/s 384 and 441 IPC were not established, and no other illegal act was alleged, the Court concluded that no case of criminal conspiracy against the accused was substantiated.Protection of Liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution): The judgment highlighted Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that it safeguards the life and personal liberty of all individuals, including foreigners. The Court underscored the state's obligation to protect the liberty of foreigners within the country and ensure that their rights are upheld in accordance with the law.Decision: Based on the analysis of the allegations and legal provisions, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned FIR and directed the immediate release of any petitioner's passport that may have been impounded due to the now-quashed FIR. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioners from Uganda.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
