A case was lodged against Nitin Dhaberao under sections 363, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3) along with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4,6 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act on the basis of the complaint by minor girl’s father.

While hearing the case, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court observed that the duo had a love affair and the alleged sexual relationship appeared to be out of love, and was not due to lust.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke held that the girl stated she had voluntarily stepped out of her house and the accused was also of a “tender age of 26 years and out of love affair, they came together.”

“It seems that the alleged incident of sexual relationship is out of attraction between the two young people, and it is not the case that the applicant has subjected the victim to a sexual assault out of lust,” the court stated.

The girl’s father alleged in his complaint that his 13-year-old daughter had stepped out of the house on August 23, 2020 on the pretext of bringing books, but did not return.

After the father reported a missing complaint, police traced the girl.

The minor girl told police that Nitin and she had a romantic relationship, and he promised to get married to her. She also informed cops that she took ornaments and cash from her house and went with Nitin, and they stayed together at different places.

“As far as merit is concerned, admittedly, the victim is 13 years of age, and her consent is not relevant. She also joined the company of the applicant (accused) and admitted her love relationship with the applicant in her statement,” Justice Joshi-Phalke noted while granting bail to Nitin.

“Her (minor’s) statement reveals that she stayed along with the present applicant at various places and did not make any grievance. Thus, it is apparent that, out of the love affair, she joined the company of the applicant,” the court stated.

A total of 423 cases are pending against MPs and MLAs in Odisha. While 24 cases were instituted, 17 were disposed of last year, according to reports received from all district and session judges of the state. Khurda figured on top of the list with 86 cases, followed by Sambalpur (53), Ganjam (51), Koraput (48), Sundargarh (41) and Cuttack (36). Cases registered as far back as 1991 are pending in Koraput district.

The reports were submitted while the high court was hearing the suo motu case “In Re-designated courts for MPs/MLAs” registered by it on December 11 last year in pursuance of a Supreme Court direction. It had then asked the district and sessions judges to furnish statement showing institution, disposal and pendency of such cases.

The division bench of acting Chief Justice B R Sarangi and Justice M S Raman posted further monitoring of the matter to two weeks later.

According to the Supreme Court direction, the bench expected designated courts to give priority to the criminal cases against MPs and MLAs punishable with death or life imprisonment, then to the cases punishable with imprisonment for five years or more and then hear all other cases and not to adjourn the cases except for rare and compelling reasons.

Amicus curiae N K Mohanty the status report in the High Court regarding the restoration work of Natamandap (Dancing Hall) in the 12th century shrine.

According to sources, the amicus curiae informed the HC that a meeting has been scheduled between December 19 and 21. A detailed discussion on the beam design in the meeting. Finalisation of the future course of action will also be done.

As per information, some works have already been undertaken as part of the restoration measures. These include the dismantling of the decorative wooden framed ceiling of the central column area which has been stored in the SJT Museum of the temple complex.

This apart, the de-plastering of the corbel stone members in the four directions with joint sealing of the de-plastering has been done, sources said.

This followed a petition filed by mother of Amrit Puhan, who fell to death from a train while being brought back from Mumbai by the police, in August, seeking Rs 50 lakh compensation and other exemplary damages for the unnatural death of her son.

The single-judge bench of Justice S K Panigrahi ordered for personal appearance of Trinath Bhoi (assistant sub-inspector), Sanmaya Patra and Janmejaya Bal (both constables) at 2pm on on November 13 to explain “as to what prevented them not to pull the chain of the train, when the deceased fell down…”

According to case records, the parents of an 18-year-old girl had lodged a police complaint, accusing Amrit of kidnapping their daughter. Later, they informed police about the whereabouts of their daughter. The three police officials of Bhadrak Town police station then went to Mumbai to rescue the girl. The incident took place when they were returning with the girl and Amrit on a train on April 6, 2018.

On September 5, 2023, Bhoi had submitted that Amrit was not arrested and was travelling on the train at the request of his elder brother. He then complained for uneasy and nauseous with vomiting, went to the entrance door of the moving train and jumped out of it.

There were two separate regular bail pleas and a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti had reserved its verdict on October 17 on both. On October 17, the top court told the Enforcement Directorate (ED) that if a bribe that was allegedly paid for tweaking the Delhi excise policy is not part of the predicate offence, it would be difficult to prove the money-laundering case against Manish Sisodia.

Supreme Court had told the federal agency that it cannot go on assumptions of bribe being paid and whatever protection is there under the law, needs to be granted.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested Manish Sisodia, an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader on February 26 for his alleged role in the Delhi liqour policy “scam”. The AAP leader has been in custody since then.

ED arrested Manish Sisodia in a money-laundering case stemming from the CBI FIR on March 9 after questioning him in Tihar jail.

the Judges of the High Court of Orissa. District Judges and judicial officers of the state joined the event through virtual mode.

Speaking at the inaugural function on virtual mode, Justice Sarangi said the Fast Track Special Court aims at expediting delivery of justice in cases involving POCSO offences and crime against women.

He hoped that the new Fast Track Special Court of Rourkela would fulfil the objective and deliver timely and effective justice. He urged the retired Presiding Officer of the new Fast Track Special Court to work towards fulfilling the expectations of the litigants waiting in courts for justice.

Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra, the Administrative Judge of Sundergarh Judgeship also urged the judicial officers posted in the Fast Track Special Courts to rise to the occasion and meet the aspirations of litigants.

Taking suo motu cognisance of surge in crimes against women and children, the Supreme Court had issued guidelines to ensure expeditious dispensation of justice in such cases. Accordingly, the Centre and the state government formulated a scheme for establishing special courts for fast tracking the cases under POCSO Act and crimes against women.

Under the scheme, 20 Fast Track Special Courts have already been inaugurated in the district headquarters. Rourkela has become the first outlying station to have a Fast Track Special Court.

The two-judge bench of Chief Justice Subhasis Talapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho reserved judgment after hearing the submissions of senior advocate Buddhadev Routray on behalf of the temple managing committee and senior advocate Pitambar Acharya representing the petitioner.

Acharya submitted that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), in an affidavit, had stated that inspection of the interior of Ratna Bhandar has not been possible for over five years for want of permission from Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA). Though the ASI had sought permission for it in a letter dated August 8, 2022, to the chief administrator of SJTA, it is still not given, he added.

Routray pointed out that a resolution for opening the inner chamber of the Ratna Bhandar for inspection and repair work and inventory of ornaments, jewellery, and other valuables during Rath Yatra next year, was passed by the managing committee in a meeting held on August 4, 2023.

This came three days after the Family Court here rejected Anubhav’s divorce plea and Varsha’s petition for restitution of her conjugal rights as the couple could not prove their allegations and counter allegations.

On August 7, 2020, Varsha had approached the SDJM court in Cuttack in a criminal miscellaneous case against Anubhav under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. She had accused him of alcohol-related abuse to physical torture and financial bungling. She also demanded a monthly amount of Rs 70,000 towards house rent and maintenance.

Prior to Varsha’s case, Anubhav had filed a divorce petition at the Patiala House Court in Delhi on July 6, 2020, citing non-consummation of marriage. It was transferred to the Family Court in Cuttack on the actress’ plea in the Supreme Court.

Terming it as ‘evasive’ and ‘short’, the bench of Chief Justice Subhasis Talapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho said that it attempted to impart lessons on the basics of Orissa Fire Prevention and Safety act instead of complying with the direction issued by the court on August 14.

The state government was asked to file a detailed affidavit along with a comprehensive plan with the date by which the required fire safety measures will be put in place at SCBMCH. “Instead of filing a comprehensive affidavit dealing with the two important aspects, a very short affidavit has been filed giving a brief outline about what are required under Rule 13 (1) and 14 (2) of Odisha Fire Prevention & Fire Safety Act 2017,” the bench observed on Monday.

“We are really constrained to observe that we did not ask for the lesson of the rules. We wanted build-up of the appropriate fire safety measures in the SCBMCH supported by a well-coordinated network of CCTV cameras,” it added while hearing a PIL filed by Maitree Sansad, a local socio-cultural organisation, alleging inadequate fire safety measures at the premier hospital.

The state has been granted time till September 26 to file a comprehensive affidavit and the matter listed for September 29.

“The judgment in Subramanian Swamy will have retrospective effect. Section 6A of the DSPE Act will be considered as having been not in force from the date of its insertion,” the constitution bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari said on Monday.

This means that senior government officials involved in corruption cases cannot demand protection from coercive measures for the period between September 2003 , when the impugned law was framed, and May 2014, when the SC judgment invalidated the need for prior sanction.

Section 6A of the DSPE Act required the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to obtain prior sanction from the central government to investigate corruption cases against an officer of the rank of joint secretary and above.

The bench further clarified that Section 6A was a procedural provision and that the 2014 decision on its validity had nothing to do with the applicability of Article 20(1), which lays down that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the alleged act.

The issue was first raised to the Supreme Court when the CBI approached it challenging a Delhi High Court order. A five-judge constitution bench in 2014 termed Section 6A a “discriminatory” provision that “impedes tracking down the corrupt senior bureaucrats”. Later in 2016, a two-judge bench in 2016 referred the questions whether there can be a deprivation of such immunity by a retrospective operation of a judgment of the Court, in the context of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, to a larger bench.