Summer Internship Comprehensive Report

Submitted to Amity University, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree in Law

SUBMITTED BY:
ANAMIKA PATEL

A3211120265

Under the supervision of:

Dr. Varun Shrivastava

Year-2025

1
CASE 1
Name of the case: Amarjeet Kumar vs The State of Delhi on 22 June, 2021
Name of the court in which the case is listed: The Delhi High Court.

Legal Issues: The petitioner and the victim girl had a romantic relationship,
according to the learned counsel, who further claims that the victim girl's age on
the day of the incident was between 18 and 20 years. But according to the
certificate, the petitioner is 17 years old. The family has a propensity to overstate
the child's age for educational purposes, according to learned counsel. At the time
of the incident, the victim girl was a major. The victim girl returned to her house
four days after the incident, according to the learned counsel, and her statement
was recorded on August 27, 2019, in accordance with Section 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. The statement's date is stated as being September 27, 2019,
however the learned Magistrate still signed it. The victim girl revealed in the
statement made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the
petitioner had forcibly gotten into a physical contact with her under the pretense
of marriage. The petitioner and the victim Delhi High Court CR. MISC. No.2579
of 2021(4) dt.22-06-2021 girl allegedly remained together for about three days
following the alleged incident, but the victim eventually went back home on
August 26, 2019, and as a result of pressure from her family, she provided her
statement in accordance with Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The
petitioner has been detained since 14.7.2020.

CASE- 2
Name of the Case: Vishwajeet Bhaumik Vs State of Delhi
Name of the Court in which it is listed: High Court of Delhi
Facts of the case:
FIR registered u/s 420, 120(B) upon a complaint by Pavitra Sikka in P.S.
Sarkanda,(C.G.) against three accused persons Vishwajeet Bhaumik (Applicant), Ruma
Bhoumik, Rahul Kumar Sinha (Manager BOB). As per the FIR, the applicant, R u m 2a
Bhaumik (his wife) and Rahul Sinha conspired by doing false signatures of the
complainant and his wife and fraudulently getting a loan amount of 68.9 lakh and used it
for their own benefit. Loan amount of Rs. 50 Lakh has been taken in the name of the
complainant and 18.9 Lakh in the name of the wife of the complainant. (total amount of
68.9 lakh).
Rahul Kumar Sinha(co-accused) got anticipatory bail by the HC. The applicant later on
got arrested. The police filed the chargesheet u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 (B). HC
granted stay over the proceedings till next date of hearing to Rahul Kumar Sinha (co-
accused) vide an order in a quashing of FIR petitioner.
The applicant filed regular bail before the Session Court which was dismissed following
which the applicant filed an application u/s 439 of Crpc for regular bail before the High
court which was dismissed. Following which he filed a Special Leave petition before the
Supreme Court in which the applicant was given liberty to conclude the trial
expeditiously.
The grounds taken by the applicant are:
- The applicant is already in custody for almost 4 years. (since 22.07.2020).
- Out of 16 only 2 witnesses have been examined and the trial would take time to
conclude. The charges are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and as per
the section 29(2) of the CrPc, JMFC has the power to grant a maximum
punishment of 3 years, and in the present case even if the period of sentence is to
be enhanced it is a matter of trial. At this stage, when there is a stay upon the trial
and the applicant has already been in custody for almost 4 years, he is entitled for
bail.
- The SC has passed the order on 14.12.2023 for expediating the trial and for the
same the applicant has even filed an application before the trial court, however due
to a stay in trial by the HC in CRMP 1/2024, the compliance of the SC order has
not taken place.
- While rejecting the bail application, the single judge has ordered that since the
applicant is in jail since 22.07.2020 it is proper to place the matter before the
Chief Justice however it has also not complied till date.
- As per the contents of the FIR, the complainant has himself stated that the
signatures were done by him and his wife on the photocopy of the documents
(diversion paper, registry paper, PAN card, Aadhar Card, purchase and sale papers,
I.T. return) and also stated that later on, he had signed some other documents
related to the bank. Moreover, the applicant has not withdrawn any amount seized
3
by the police as alleged against the applicant.
Legal Issue: Regular Bail u/s 439 Crpc.
Current Position of the Case: The matter was listed along with the quashing of FIR
petition filed by another co-accused person. The final hearing of the case is over and the
case is reserved for judgement.

CASE- 3
Name of the Case: Tanzeel Raza versus The State of Delhi
Name of the Court in which it is listed: Supreme court of India
Facts of the Case:
FIR No. 45/2016 was lodged against the petitioner and two other co-accused u/s 302 and
34. On the very same day, a counter FIR was also lodged by the side of the petitioner.
According to the charge sheet, the case of the prosecution in brief is as follows that on
31.03.2016 at 09:15 pm, the applicant's son deceased Sumit Raxel and his friends Neeraj
Sonkar, Golu, Arun Yadav were talking in front of the house of Tijauram Baghel. Then
the accused Tanjeel, Wasim Pasha and Abid Khan came there in an Activa vehicle with
the common intention of killing Sumit due to old enmity and the accused Tanjeel fired
bullet from the pistol he was keeping near Sumit's neck, chest and ribs, which led to his
death. Thereafter, on the report of applicant Annu alias Shravan Raxel, a case was
registered and taken up for investigation and during the investigation, the accused were
found to have committed a crime and they were arrested and after complete investigation,
the charge sheet was presented in the court.
According to the charge sheet in the counter case, the case of the prosecution in brief is
that on 31.03.2016 at 08:30 pm, Sumit Raxel called the applicant Monu alias Tanjeel
Raza and when the applicant Monu alias Tanjeel Raza went near Sumit Raxel's house
with his friends Wasim Pasha and Abid Khan, then Sumit Raxel, Sanjay Raxel, Annu
Raxel, Rishabh Raxel, Golurao, Arun Yadav and Neeraj Sonkar came together and
attacked him with a knife with the intention of killing him, due to which he suffered
injuries on his hand, back, thigh and head. After receiving the information, Maudhapara
police station took the applicant and the injured to Mekahara Hospital and treated them.
After the report of the applicant, the crime was registered and taken up for investigation
and during the investigation, the accused were found to have committed the crime and
they were arrested and after thorough investigation, the charge sheet was presented in the
court where sections 147, 148, 325, 307/149 IPC were invoked. 4
In the case during the trial 19 witnesses were examined and the trial was concluded in
which the Judgement was passed by the Sessions Court in the Sessions Trial No.
126/2016 in which two accused (Wasim Pasha and Abid Khan) were acquitted from all
the charges and the petitioner herein was convicted for offence punishable u/s 302 and
25(1)B, 27(1) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to life imprisonment on 31.10.2018.
The Petitioner filed a Criminal appeal before the HC which was dismissed by the High
Court.
Meanwhile in the counter case, the session courts passed the judgement on 19.12.2018
convicting four out of seven accused persons for offence punishable u/s 147, 148, 307 of
IPC and u/s 25(1) (1-b) and 27(1) of the Arms Act.
The petitioner therefore filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India.
The grounds take by the petitioner are that as per the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in case of a case and cross case, the trial of both the cases are to be conducted by
the same court of law parallelly and the judgement is to be given together after
considering circumstances. However in the present case, the judgement was delivered
twice by the court i.e. individually for both the cases so it is necessary to bring on records
before this court of law for scrutinization and justice.
Current Position of the Case: Notice issued.

CASE- 4
Name of the Case: R.N. Sharma Versus Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and
ors.
Name of the Court in which it is listed: Supreme court of India
Facts of the Case:
On 06.08.1988 Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Professor/ Junior Scientist in the
Respondent University where he imparted teaching. On 23.03.2007 a notification was
issued for the enhancement in the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years for teachers
who were holding teaching positions on regular employment against sanctioned posts as
of 15.03.2017 in centrally funded Institution of higher and technical education. On
24.03.2009 Petitioner along with two of his colleagues (Dr. Hemant Kumar Awasthi and
Dr. R.U. Khan) were appointed as Programme Coordinator at Krishi Vigran Kendra
(KVK) (a project funded by Indian Council for Agriculture Research) of Indira Gandhi
Vishwavidyalaya. On 17.08.2010 “Regulation for Retirement and upgradation for
5
Teachers/Equivalent Cadre and Administration Post Regulation 2009” (2009 regulation)
brought into force. After that, on 04.07.2012 Petitioner was promoted from Assistant
Professor/Scientist (selection Grade ) to Associate Professor/Senior Scientist (selection
grade) under the Career Advancement Scheme. Petitioner was further promoted as
Professor/Principal Scientist under the Career Advancement scheme. An Order passed
by the R1/university for the superannuation of the petitioner on 31.05.2023 at the age of
62 years (without any prior notice and without providing opportunity of hearing).
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition (Service) before the High Court of Delhi against his
order of Superannuation in which the HC disposed of the WPS permitting him to submit
a fresh representation to the university at the earliest and the same to considered within
45 days by the R1/Uni. Following the said order the petitioner filed a fresh representation
before the University. The R1/university passed an order turning down the representation
made by the petitioner and upholding his superannuation.
Petitioner filed a WPS for quashing of the order of the R1 University which was allowed
and the University was ordered to reinstate the petitioner. The University filed a review
of the said order which was dismissed. Following which the University filed an appeal
before the HC in which the division bench of HC overturned the Judgement of the Single
bench.
Therefore the Petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issue involved: whether the superannuation of the petitioner by the respondent
university is valid and whether he is entitled to be reinstated in the post.
Current Position of the case: Notice issued.

CASE- 5
Name of the Case: Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Ors. Versus Laxmi Ventures and Ors.
Name of the Court in which it is listed: Supreme court of India
Facts of the Case:
The Respondent No. 1 company was incorporated in the name of Laxmi Distributors Pvt.
Ltd on 15.01.1980. The petitioner and Respondent 1- 4 belong to one family and
connected as director with the said company. There is an inter-se director dispute between
the petitioner and respondent no. 4 for the purpose of the valuation of shares for which a
Company petition was filed before the Company Law Board, New Delhi. CLB passed an
order directing the petitioner would continue to manage Unit the only subject matter a n d6
property in question in the main SLP and the Respondents would not interfere with the
working of that Unit. Ld. CLB passed a detailed order directing the respondents to remit
a sum of INR 1 Crore to that Unit. The petitioner No. 1 was directed to write afresh to
the Respondent No. 1 as a litigant director and shareholder for the inspection of
documents and Respondents were asked to comply the same. The Ld. CLB New Delhi
on 06.01.2012 passed its judgement and order in Company Petition No. wherein it was
held that the reliefs sought by the petitioners are not maintainable.
The petitioner filed a Company Appeal before the HC of Bombay which was also
dismissed. Following which the petitioners preferred an SLP before the Supreme Court
of India.
Notice was issued on 11.12.2023 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the order “The
company in question will continue to do business as usual. The fixed assets of the
company situated at Kalkaji Delhi, will not be sold without the permission of this Court.”
The property in question i.e. Purena Land (of the application filed by the present
applicant/R-5, having no connection with that Unit in any manner whatsoever) was sold
by the Respondent No. 1 through its authorized representative to the applicant herein vide
a registered sale deed dated 02.01.2024 before the Concerned Dist. Registrar, Raipur.
The petitioners filed an IA before the Hon’ble SC, attempted to take an unfair advantage
on the stay order granted by the court and to get an order of declaring the Sale deed as
null and void and restraining the respondents in alienating or disposing off the assets of
the R1 including the present property in question. The SC ordered to implead the buyers
of the land as respondents i.e. Rama Infratech Pvt Ltd.
Legal Issue: Valuation of Shares
Current position of the case: The case has been heard several times by the court.
Valuation of the company is still going on and in meanwhile for the purpose of valuation
of shares the value of the property that is sold is to be taken as 20 Cr and sale deed is to
be kept in abeyance. However no further fixed assests of the that Unit is to be sold.

CASE – 6
Name of the Case: Ku. Ananya Yadav Versus Surendra Yadav & Anr
Name of the court in which the case is listed: Supreme Court of India
Facts of the Case:
Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the Chandrabhan Yadav and Manju Yadu7,
who is mother of Petitioner, was solemnized and out of their wedlock, the Ku. Ananya
was born. Before marriage of the Chandrabhan Yadu and Manju Yadu, a love affair was
there between Manju Yadu and Surendra Yadu and even the same continued after their
marriage, as a result of which the marriage of the Chandrabhan Yadu and Manju Yadu
got dissolved on 05.05.2016. Thereafter the Surendra Yadav assured ManjuYadu and
Petitioner to look after them and even an affidavit was executed by Surendra Yadav on
15.10.2015 in this regard, but soon thereafter he denied to look after them, as a result of
which the petitioner filed application under Section 125 of CrPC before the Trial Court
seeking maintenance from the Chandrabhan Yadu and Surendra Yadav on the ground
that Surendra Yadu is the biological father of Chandrabhan Yadau and he is a step father,
but the same was denied by Surendra Yadav, upon which the petitioner filed application
for conducting DNA test of petitioner and Surendra Yadav, to verify that the petitioner
is his biological daughter, which was allowed by the Trial Court, against which the
CRMP was filed by the Surendra Yadav (respondent no. 1) before the High Court of
Delhi on the ground that as per the presumption under section 112 of the Indian evidence
act that there is a presumption that child born during the lawful wedlock is a legitimate
child of his father and if, it has not been shown that parties had no excess to each other
at any time, when she could have been begotten. Despite that, learned trial Court has
passed the order for conducting the DNA test of petitioner and Surendra Yadav, that too
without his consent, which is against the law. Therefore, impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
The high court held that even though, if it is claimed that the Surendra Yadav is a
biological father of Petitioner, then it cannot be decided by the Court in a summary
proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., particularly when Surendra Yadav is not ready
for his DNA test, mother of petitioner, namely Manju Yadu is not a party, and petitioner
was born during the subsistence of marriage of her father and mother and allowed the
CRMP.
Current Position of the Case: SLP filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court
against the order passed by the High Court.

CASE – 7
Name of the Case: State of Chhattisgarh Vs Manav Pandey and ors.
Name of the court in which the case is listed: Supreme Court of India
Facts of the case:
8
The accused were charged for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
34 Indian Penal Code.
The factual matrix of the prosecution's case is that on September 21, 2018, complainant
reported the matter to the police of P.S. Azad Chowk, stating that on September 20, 2018,
at around 10:00 p.m., he went to sleep after dinner and his son Mohammad Siraj went
outside for a visit with his friends. Sheikh Alam came to his house in the morning and
told him that Manav Pandey and his two friends had beaten his son Mohammad Siraj
with a knife and sticks and that he was unconscious at Jai Kali Chowk in Bhoipara.
On receiving such information, he went to Jai Kali Chowk, where he learned that due to
an old enmity, Manav Pandey and his two friends planned to kill his son Mohammad
Siraj, and one boy caught hold of him tightly, and after danda blows by another boy on
his abandon, Manav Pandey caused grievous injuries by giving knife blows on his
abandon. His friends Prashant Patel and Aman Bhargav brought him to Yashwant
Hospital for treatment, and then, on the advice of the doctors at that hospital, they brought
him to Ramkrishna Care Hospital for treatment, but the doctors declared him dead.
On such information, first information report under Section under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against accused Manav Pandey and his
two friends.
The learned APP for the State argued that the prosecution had proven the case beyond a
reasonable doubt because all of the witnesses had supported the prosecution. There is no
material contradiction in the witness statements. On these grounds, he prayed for the
accused's conviction under the law.
The counsel of the accused contended that the prosecution had failed to prove their guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. The registration of the F.I.R. is delayed by over 10 hours,
and since this delay has not been explained, the prosecution's case is seriously
undermined. The Murg intimation of police station Tikrapara is not on the case file,
proving that the accused were falsely implicated.
The prosecution failed to establish motive. Because all of the witnesses are related to the
deceased, their evidence cannot be trusted. Compliance with Section 157 Cr. P. C. has
not been made, indicating that the accused have been falsely implicated. Because the
disclosure statement and recovery have not been proven, benefits should be given to the
accused. Thus the accused are falsely implicated.
The accused were convicted by the trial court and punishment of life imprisonment.
The accused/petitioner filed an appeal before the HC which was dismissed. Therefore the
accused/petitioner moved to the SC.
Legal Issue: Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code 9

Current position of the case: Notice issued.

CASE – 8
Name of the Case: Manoj Pandey Versus State of Delhi
Name of the court in which the case is listed: High Court of Delhi

Facts of the case

An FIR was lodged against the applicant herein u/s 384 I.P.C. & 3 (2) (va) Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It was alleged that, the
complainant Arun Chabra has lodged a report at Police Station u/s 384 of I.P.C. & 3(2)
(va) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the present applicant
with the allegation that while the complainant was working as a manager/technical
assistant, the applicant Manoj Pandey along with the 7-8 other persons came and
forcefully took photographs of the construction duties going in the state and started
threatening that you are doing corruption in the work. The applicant also took away Rs.
5 Lakhs with the complainant and further demanded for 20 lakhs rupees. After this the
applicant continuously came in the construction site with 7-8 persons and threatened the
complainant and his employees and while abusing one Harendra Mahlevar and one
Hiradas Jangde with language related to caste and assaulted them due to which the
employees are frightened. An anticipatory bail was filed before the Ld. Special Judge
(Atrocities), which was dismissed on the ground that as per the section 18 of the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 438
of the Code not to apply to persons, involving the arrest of any person on an accusation
of having committed an offence under this Act and as per the prosecution story, there is
a prima facie case against him.
An Appeal under section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is filed against the order passed by the ld. special
judge.
Legal Issue: Anticipatory bail for offence u/s 384 I.P.C. & 3 (2) (va) Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Current Position of the case: The court has asked to file additional document about
average sales of the newspaper and along with its registration number.
1
CASE-9
Name of the Case: AgDe Peter Chinaka Versus State of Delhi
Name of the court in which the case is listed: Supreme Court of India

Facts of the Case:

The Prosecutor's case is that this Applicant and other defendants are accused of
defrauding the Victim, Anita Sahu, a government teacher. During this process, the
plaintiff allegedly forced the victim to part with an amount in excess of Rs.24.07 Lakh.
FIR has grasped the matter at the request of the victim's brother, i.e. PW-2 Upendra
Kumar Sahu.
The Prosecutor's case is also the name of a certain Rohan Mishra who appeared on the
website "Jeevansathi.com" looking for a marriage union. The mobile phone number
provided and the IP address of the website are also those of the applicant. The victim is
said to have contacted the mobile number listed on the website and the mobile call was
picked up by someone identified as Rohan Mishra. It is said that there was an ongoing
conversation between the victim and Rohan Mishra after that, including WhatsApp chats
etc. During the interaction between the victim and the so-called Rohan Mishra, it is
believed that in order to obtain some of the money that Rohan Mishra was supposed to
inherit after the death of his parents and intends to transfer to the victim's name, he We
force the victim to part with it periodically in the amount of Rs 24.07 Lakh. The total
amount was transferred to three accounts. Most of the money was transferred to M/s
Tarun Enterprises account. Later, it was discovered that the created profile was a fake
profile. The victim was duped by the plaintiff and this resulted in the victim's brother
PW-2 filing a FIR to track the IP address and cell phone number used during the
interaction with the victim. The applicant was arrested on October 24, 2020 and since
then he is in jail.
Learned Counsel for Applicant, submits that it is a case where the Victim (Anita Sahu)
and the Complainant (Upendra Kumar Sahu) both have been examined. The Seizure
Witnesses were also examined. There is no substantial evidence derived from the
statements made by these material Witnesses who have been examined by now.
The applicant side submits that the present applicant is innocent and he has not committed
any offence as alleged against him. He has been falsely implicated in the instant crime.
The applicant is the Nigeria and was in India for studying but has been falsely implicated.
He got a part time job in Tarun Enterprises and the applicant has been falsely implicated1.
That after rejection of bail by this Hon'ble Court P.W-01 and P.W. 2 has been examined.
It is submitted that P.W-01, the victim in her cross-examination has specifally stated that
she did not had any conversation with the present applicant, and she used to talk with
person named Rohan. It is also submitted that she has also admitted that no transaction
had been made in the account of present applicant.
The applicant is in jail since 24.10.2020 and he is aged about 30 years and on accounts
of his incarceration the applicant is suffering a lot.
The applicant is the resident of address mentioned above in the cause title of the bail
application and there is no chance of his absconding or tempering the prosecution
witnesses. That, the applicant is ready to furnish adequate security and shall abide by all
the directions and conditions, which may be imposed by this Hon 'ble Court
while granting bail.
Learned State Counsel, opposes the request to be released on bail primarily on the
grounds that the Applicant is a foreigner, which can lead to a lot of trouble if he is released
on bail and for a number of reasons. because if he violates the conditions imposed by this
Court, it will lead to further complications.
Learned State Counsel drew further attention of the Court to the fact that as of today, the
petitioner has no valid legal documents in his name, namely a valid visa or household
registration. valid projection. Therefore, the Applicant will not be able to be released
without these valid documents.
It is also the contention of learned State Counsel even if the applicant was also directly
or indirectly involved in the commission of the offence, the same result emerges from
the fact that all Gazettes as well as cell phones were withdrawn. phone numbers and IP
Addresses with which the Victim interacted prior to the scam, some of which are in the
Subscriber's name.
Learned State Counsel further opposes the Bail Application saying that the Applicant
also has past antecedents of similar offence having committed in as much as there are
two other FIRs lodged against him
Legal Issues: Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
for grant of bail to the Applicant.
Judgement
Considering the period of custody undergone by the Applicant, a strong case for grant of
bail to the Applicant has been made out. Accordingly, the Bail Application is allowed. It
is ordered that the Applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bo n d1
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of
the concerned Trial Court for his appearance on all such dates of hearing as directed by
the Trial Court.

CASE-10
Name of the Case: Umesh Baghel Vs State of Delhi & Anr
Name of the court in which the case is listed: Supreme Court of India
Facts of the Case:
Prosecution case, in brief is that on 28.4.2014 at around 8:00 a.m. under Police Station,
the three Accused herein, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Teerathram
Baghel with iron rod, bamboo stick and katar (dagger) on account of which, he suffered
grievous injuries and died and they also voluntarily caused hurt to Ku. Bhuvaneshwari
(PW-3) and Ku. Malti (PW-1), thereby committed the said offences.
According to the prosecution, on the date and time of the incident, the Accused followed
Teerathram Baghel, the deceased, when he was going to Basna on his Platina motorcycle
along with his two daughters, Ku. Malti (PW-1) and Ku. Bhuvaneshwari (PW-3) as
pillion riders. When they reached near the accident place Accused dashed their car to the
motorcycle which the deceased was driving and on account of which, the deceased and
her two daughters fell down. The Accused then came out of their car and A-2 Heerasingh
Baghel who was carrying an iron rod and A-3 Umesh Baghel who was armed with a
dagger (katar) chased the deceased and assaulted him to death by using the said weapons
whereas A-1 Bhisham Baghel is said to have assaulted Ku. Bhuvaneshwari (PW-3) with
a bamboo stick on her head on account of which, she sustained injuries and fell
unconscious. Ku. Malti (PW-1) also received simple injuries on account of falling down
on the ground from the motorcycle which was dashed by the Accused by their car.
The matter was reported by Ku. Malti (PW-1) at Police Station Basna and the dead body
of deceased Teerathram Baghel was subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by
Dr. S.R. Sidar (PW-11) in which the cause of death was opined to be due to hemorrhage
and shock as a result of neck injuries and the nature of death was homicidal.
After completion of the trial, the Appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 302/34 & 307/34 of IPC as well as under Section 25/27 of the
Arms Act and the matter was put to trial before the Court. After conclusion of the trial,
the Trial Court, while acquitting the Accused persons from the offences under Section1s
307/34 of IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, convicted the Accused Persons for the
offences under Sections 302/34 & 323/34 of IPC and sentenced them.
The Accused persons filed Criminal Appeal against the Judgement passed by Trial court
for their acquittal. However, the Hon’ble High Court affirmed the conviction of Umesh
Baghel under section 302 of IPC and acquitted against other charges while also acquitting
all the other persons against all the charges.
Legal Issues Involved: Section 302, 307, 323 and 34 of IPC along with Section 25 and
27 of the Arms Act.
Current position of the Case: SLP Filed.

CASE-11
Name of the Case: Abdul Junaid Siddiqui and Ors. vs Minhazuddin and Ors
Name of the court in which the case is listed: Supreme Court of India
Facts of the Case:
An FIR was lodged from the side /group petitioner (Ishrar Ahmed) No. 43/2020 under
Section 420, 120B, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC against the respondent no. 2/his siblings
(brother & sister of Shahid Munir) who is related to mother of the petitioner and for
whom the petitioner and his family are fighting, with the allegation of using forged and
fabricated power of attorney. Again a written complaint filed by the side of petitioner no.
2 (Faizal Shahid) before Superintendent of Police station again with the allegation of
forged and fabricated power of attorney (which could not be converted in to the FIR
against the respondent group).
An order was passed by Civil Judge Class-I Raipur in a civil suit in the matter of Sultana
Begum and Another Vs. People at large declaring the civil death of Shahid Munir (who
is related to mother of the petitioner and for whom the petitioner and his family are
fighting). Charge sheet filed against the respondent No. 2 and his siblings who are the
brothers and sister of Shahid Munir, under the commission of the charges of under
Section 420 of IPC against accused Salahuddin only. Two orders passed by the Court of
Tahsildar (Revenue Court) in favour of the Sultana Begum wife of Shahid Munir, (group
of petitioner), based on which the revenue records entries was held in her favour. As a
vindictive counter blast by Respondent no. 2, an FIR was lodged against Civil Court
order alleged to be obtained in fraudulent manner in favour of petitioners’ group. Writ
petition filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned FIR before the High Court of
Chhattisgarh along with the interim prayer of stay on the arrest and stay in furthe 1r
proceeding in the FIR. A Coordinate division bench of Chhattisgarh High Court passed
the interim order in favour of petitioners with the finding that “dispute arose in between
the parties is in the nature of civil dispute which has been tried in convert in the criminal
case by lodging the FIR, hence ordered for no coercive proceedings against the impugned
FIR”. In the connected petition filed by Abdul Rahim Siddique (father of petitioner) in
WP (crl) 99/2023, the division bench of the same HC disposed of the matter with the
finding to conclude the investigation and submit a police report under 173 of Cr.P.C. in
6 weeks and granted interim protection to the petitioner for 6 weeks. The HC disposed
the WP of the petitioners in the same manner. Present SLP filed.
The grounds taken by the petitioner are that
- The dispute in the present case is totally civil in nature and the FIR has been filed
as a vindictive couterblast of the order by the civil court.
- That law is very much settled in case of Mitesh Kumar J Sha Vs. The State of
Karnataka and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 976 regarding the cases of 482 of
Cr.P.C. with the clear observation and disapproval of this Hon’ble Court while
held the enumerable circumstances expressing its disapproval for imparting
criminal colour to a civil dispute, merely to take advantage of a relatively quick
relief, nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
- The FIR is anti-timed even more than a year in regard to the date of the alleged
cause of action.
Current position of the Case: Notice issued. Reply has been filed by the respondents.
The petitioner are directed to file Rejoinder.

CASE-12
Name of the Case: Ashutosh Pandey Versus State of Delhi & Ors.

Name of the court in which the case is listed: High Court of Delhi
Facts of the Case:
The applicant has filed an application for the quashing of FIR filed by the prosecutrix.
The prosecution story in brief, is that, on 19.10.2020 the victim has made a written
complaint alleging that the petitioner was the owner of flat where he kept her as tenant
and committed forceful sexual intercourse against her will from 07.05.2020 to
16.09.2020. It is contended that the petitioner abused and threatened the victim and used
to commit sexual intercourse with her on many times. It is also contended that the
petitioner exploited her to spoil her name in the society, therefore, she did not object the
act of the petitioner, taking advantage of her silence, the petitioner committed sexua 1l
intercourse with her repeatedly. It is further contended that on 13.08.2020, she went for
pregnancy test which was found positive then the petitioner gave some medicine for
abortion. It is also contended that on 14.09.2020 the petitioner abused her and beat her
and had broken her mobile, thereafter, the victim lodged the unregistered FIR which
subsequently been compromised by the petitioner by giving Rs. 20,000/- to the victim.
Thereafter, the victim made another written complaint on 24.09.2020 which is registered
against the petitioner. The prosecution taking cognizance of the FIR has investigated in
the matter and after completion of investigation submitted final reported before learned
Special Judge.
Legal Issues involved: Sec. 376, 376(2) (N), 313, 419, 323 and 506 of IPC read with
3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989
Current Position of the Case: The High Court passed its judgement vide which the
CRMP for quashing was dismissed with the finding that it cannot be said that no prima-
facie case is made out against the petitioner. The allegation against applicant is that he
has forcefully made sexual intercourse with the victim and from the statement of the
victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC wherein she has reiterated the stand
taken by her in the FIR. Accordingly, it was held that present is not a fit case to exercise
its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings.

CASE 13

Name of the case: Neeraj Kumar Yadav @ Paltu Yadav vs The State of Delhi
Name of the court in which the case is listed: The Delhi High Court.

Facts of the cases: he petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence
punishableunder Sections 341, 323, 307, 427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27
of the Arms Act.

Legal Issues: Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let
the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each in connectionwith Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No. 307/2020 to the
satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending.
Current Position of the case: The petitioner will mark his attendance in the
local police station in the first week of every month till the conclusion of the 1
trial, failing which theprosecution will be at liberty to move cancellation of his
bail bond.
CASE 14

Name of the Case: Bijay Bhagat And Ors vs The State Of Delhi.
Name of the court in which the case is listed: Delhi High Court.
Fact of the case: By way of the instant interlocutory application, the appellant
no.1 Bijay Bhagat has renewed his prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail during pendency ofthe appeal.

Legal Issues: The instant application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has
been filed for condoning the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal before this Court
against the judgment ofconviction and order of sentence.

Current Position of the Case: The prayer for bail of the appellant shall be
considered after receipt of the lower court records. Interlocutory application
stands allowed.

1
CASE- 15
Name of the Case: Ashutosh Kumar Oza versus State of Delhi
Name of the Court in which it is listed: Supreme court of India
Facts of the Case:
An FIR was registered by the complainant Principle, Subhadra Educational
Academy, against the petitioner (age- 45 years) under section 406, 420, 464, 465,
468, 469, 471 of IPC and section 66(c) & 66(e) of the IT Act, 2000. The FIR
indicated that the complainant Neena Neerajkumar Bhalla is working as a
principal of another branch of Subhadra Education Society since 7 years. It is
alleged in the FIR that, there was requirement of enhancement of division
therefore, Headmistress of the school reported the said requirement to the society.
The society gave sanction. Thereafter, she sent all documents to the Accountant
Ravindra Balasaheb Chavan and to the Branch SNBP International School and
petitioner who was working as Advisor and was looking after the work of CBSC
Board. Because of trust, she sent (1) State NOC, 2) State Recognization, 3) Land
Certificate, 4) Building safety certificate, 5) Fire Safety Certificate, 6) Society
registration Certificate, 7) CBSC affiliated letter, 8) Additional Teachers detail
etc to the petitioner herein. It was further alleged that expected to forward the said
documents as received, however, the made changes in the documents of fire
certificate and land certificate and made forged documents and forged seal and
forged signatures and uploaded the said documents on the website of Central
Board of Secondary Education. It was further contended that News was published
and spread in the press and media on 27.01.2023, therefore, she came to know
the cheating made by the petitioner herein therefore, she informed the said fact to
her Headquarter. Society appointed committee for inquiry and after inquiry
committee concluded that petitioner herein cheated the society and therefore, she
lodged complaint against petitioner herein, which was further converted in to the
impugned FIR in the present matter.
Bail Application No. 5383/2023 was filed before the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge
was dismissed with the finding that “investigation is required”. Whereafter,
Petitioner filed Anticipatory Bail Application before the High Court which was
also declined. Petitioner thus filed an anticipatory bail before the Supreme Court 1
which was also dismissed granting liberty to petitioner to place all the documents
and papers available with him before the investigating officer. In compliance of
the said order Petitioner filed all the relevant documents through his advocated.
Petitioner filed Second Anticipatory Bail before the HC of Delhi which was again
dismissed following which he has filed this Anticipatory Bail before the Supreme
Court for the Second time.
Legal Issue: Anticipatory Bail
Current Position of the Case: Notice issued with interim protection of no
coercive Steps till the next date of hearing.

COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES

1
In this internship, I learnt how to drafting petitions, appeals, affidavits, and other
pleadings submitted before the Supreme Court. This internship provided me with
a unique insight into the procedural intricacies and high standards required in
Supreme Court litigation. I was involved in drafting petitions, conducting legal
research, and observing court proceedings, which allowed me to gain a
comprehensive understanding of the litigation process at the apex court level.
Working closely with an AOR, I gained firsthand experience in understanding
the meticulous attention to detail required in legal drafting and the strategic
thinking involved in case preparation. Additionally, I had the opportunity to make
summaries of cases for senior advocates for hearing.

In the Duration of My Internship , I learned numerous things. I was only assigned

to reading case files and making brief of the cases, also assign me other works
too, like drafting and briefing clients, researching on various legal issues and the
opinion of the court on that matter.I was apprehensive with the introductory
theoretical knowledge of contract law, CPC and CRPC and Law of Tort Family
law etc .