IPC Section 380 — Theft in dwelling house

Judgments citing IPC Section 380

1. Gaddam Laxmikanth & Anr. vs. State of Telangana on 10 July, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana10 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Gaddam Laxmikanth & Anr. vs. State of Telangana on 10 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad Date of Judgment: 10 July, 2023 Bench: Justice K. Lakshman & Justice P. Sree Sudha Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder, Rape, Robbery Key Legal Propositions 1. Conviction based on extra-judicial confession requires corroborating evidence, particularly when witnesses turn hostile. 2. Prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and lapses in investigation and contradictory evidence can lead to acquittal. 3. A finding of rape requires sufficient evidence; presumptions and conjectures are insufficient for conviction under Section 376 IPC. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal arises from a judgment dated 11.02.2015, convicting the Appellants (A.1 & A.2) for offences including rape (Section 376 IPC), murder (Section 302 IPC), and robbery (Section 380 IPC). The conviction was based primarily on an extra-judicial confession made to P.W.4 and circumstantial evidence. The Appellants contended that the trial court failed to consider the lack of motive, inconsistencies in evidence, and the absence of crucial links. Held: A. On Conviction & E

2. A2 vs. The State & Cri minal Appeal No.349 of 2016 is filed by A1 vs. The State on 11 August, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh11 Aug 2023

   Case Name: A2 vs. The State & Cri minal Appeal No.349 of 2016 is filed by A1 vs. The State on 11 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Date of Judgment: 11 August, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy & Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao Subject: Criminal Law – Murder, Theft, Dishonest Receipt of Stolen Property – Admissibility of Confessional Statements & Evidence – Standard of Proof Key Legal Propositions 1. Confessional statements require careful scrutiny and cannot be solely relied upon for conviction, especially in the absence of corroborating evidence. 2. Recovery of property based on a confession is not admissible unless a test identification parade is conducted to establish its connection to the crime. 3. Fingerprint evidence obtained without adhering to the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, while not necessarily mandatory, raises doubts regarding its reliability and requires careful consideration. Judgment Summary Background: The appeals arise from a judgment of the Sessions Court convicting A1 and A2 under Sections 302, 380, and 404 r/w 34 I.P.C. for the murder of Nagarapu Srinivasa Padmaja and related offences. The prosecution relied

3. The State of A.P. vs Jannuru Peraiah Naidu & Mekala Guruvu on 13 April, 2007

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh13 Apr 2007

   Case Name: The State of A.P. vs Jannuru Peraiah Naidu & Mekala Guruvu on 13 April, 2007 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh :: Amaravati Date of Judgment: 06 December, 2023 Bench: Sri Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy Subject: Criminal Law – Theft – Appeal against Acquittal – Insufficient Evidence Key Legal Propositions 1. Hearsay evidence, without corroboration, is insufficient to establish guilt. 2. A prolonged delay between the alleged offence and recovery of stolen property creates doubt regarding the prosecution's case. 3. Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof of guilt. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondents/accused by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru, in a case involving allegations of theft under Sections 380 or 411 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused stole Rs. 1,75,000/- from the office premises of M/s. Sri Padma Priya and M/s. Sri Vishnu Priya Finance Corporation. Held: A. On Evidence & Witness Testimony: Majority View: The Court held that PW.1, the defacto complainant, is a hearsay witness. PW.3, the key witness, could only state

4. Singanapudi Eeswara Rao & Anr. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh on 11 August, 2023

   High Court of Andhra Pradesh11 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Singanapudi Eeswara Rao & Anr. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh on 11 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati Date of Judgment: 11 August, 2023 Bench: Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy & Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao Subject: Criminal Appeal – Murder, Robbery, and Dishonest Receipt of Property Key Legal Propositions 1. Confessional statements recorded under Section 26 of the Evidence Act are inadmissible unless corroborated by other evidence. 2. Test Identification Parade (TIP) is crucial for establishing the recovery of stolen property and its absence weakens the prosecution's case. 3. Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, free from any other plausible hypothesis, to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment Summary Background: Criminal Appeals Nos. 300 & 349 of 2016 arose from a judgment dated 22.02.2016, convicting the appellants (A1 & A2) under Sections 302, 380, and 404 r/w 34 IPC for the murder of Nagarapu Srinivasa Padmaja, along with charges of robbery and dishonest receipt of stolen property. The case involved allegations of a planned murder motivated by personal disputes and illicit relationships. Held: A.

5. Amarjit Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi on 10 April, 2023

   High Court of Delhi10 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Amarjit Singh vs State of NCT of Delhi on 10 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 10 April, 2023 Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Compromise – Section 482 CrPC Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts may quash criminal proceedings when the chances of ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose would be served by continuation of the prosecution. 2. A compromise deed executed between parties, reflecting their free will without coercion, is a valid ground for quashing of FIR. 3. The Court may consider the specific facts of a case, including the medical condition of the accused, while deciding a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings. Judgment Summary Background: The present petition sought quashing of FIR No. 798/2015 registered under Sections 380/427/442 IPC at PS Patel Nagar, alleging that the petitioner broke into the office of Aam Aadmi Party, damaged property, and stole a watch. A compromise deed was executed between the petitioner and the complainant (Respondent No. 2). The Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit stating no objection to quashing the FIR and related criminal case. The petitioner

6. Ragini Sharma vs NCT of Delhi and Another on 11 July, 2023

   High Court of Delhi11 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Ragini Sharma vs NCT of Delhi and Another on 11 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 11 July, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law, Quashing of FIR, Settlement, Section 482 Cr.P.C. Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process or secure justice. 2. Quashing of criminal proceedings is permissible when a dispute is private, settled amicably, and conviction prospects are bleak. 3. The primary aim is to achieve real, complete, and substantial justice, and a settlement between parties can justify quashing an FIR. Judgment Summary Background: The petition sought quashing of FIR No. 251/2018 registered under Section 380 IPC, alleging theft of money and jewelry. The complainant, Respondent No. 2, suspected a planned robbery. The petitioner, Respondent No. 2’s daughter, was summoned by the trial court. The parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to settle the dispute. Held: A. On Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Quashing of FIR: Majority View: The Court held that it has the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

7. Vipin Chaurasia & Anr. vs State of NCT & Anr. on 04 September, 2023

   High Court of Delhi4 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Vipin Chaurasia & Anr. vs State of NCT & Anr. on 04 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 04 September, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Settlement – Section 482 CrPC Key Legal Propositions 1. If a private dispute is resolved through a voluntary settlement, courts may consider quashing criminal proceedings. 2. Courts must ensure that any settlement reached is within the bounds of the law before quashing proceedings. 3. Continuation of trial is unwarranted when parties have reached an amicable settlement and do not wish to pursue the case further. Judgment Summary Background: The present petition sought quashing of FIR No. 220/2017 registered under Sections 452/380/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at PS Swaroop Nagar, Delhi. The FIR was lodged based on allegations of trespass, assault, and theft. Subsequently, the parties reached a settlement, with the petitioner offering and the complainant accepting a sum of Rs. 90,000 as full and final settlement. Held: A. On Quashing of FIR: Majority View: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential procee

8. Ram Lubhaya Sehgal & Ors. vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. on 12 July, 2023

   High Court of Delhi12 Jul 2023

   Case Name: Ram Lubhaya Sehgal & Ors. vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. on 12 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 12 July, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Compromise – Abuse of Process – Section 482 Cr.P.C. Key Legal Propositions 1. Section 482 Cr.P.C. confers wide powers, but must be exercised with circumspection to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process. 2. An amicable settlement between parties, even in cases of non-compoundable offences, may justify quashing of proceedings as an abuse of process. 3. Courts may consider social harmony and the voluntary nature of a compromise when deciding whether to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Judgment Summary Background: The present petition sought quashing of FIR No. 285/2017 registered under Sections 380/448/457/34 IPC, alleging theft from a tailoring shop. The parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreeing to settle the dispute amicably and requesting the court to quash the FIR. The complainant supported the quashing, and the Investigating Officer confirmed no pending cases against the parties. Held:

9. Divya vs State of NCT of Delhi on 11 April, 2023

   High Court of Delhi11 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Divya vs State of NCT of Delhi on 11 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 11 April, 2023 Bench: Justice Anish Dayal Subject: Criminal Law, Domestic Violence, Quashing of FIR, Trespass, Theft, Protection Orders Key Legal Propositions 1. A married woman’s entry into her matrimonial home is a matter of right, especially when secured by a protection order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. The offences of house trespass and house breaking require proof of criminal intent and that the property is in the possession of another; a legally wedded wife with a right to reside in a shared household cannot be accused of these offences. 3. FIRs registered as counterblasts or with malicious intent, particularly in the context of matrimonial disputes, are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 339/2022 registered under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC, alleging house trespass and theft. The FIR was lodged by the petitioner’s father-in-law after she entered her matrimonial home following a period of being denied access, despite a

10. Habibbur Rahman vs State of NCT of Delhi on 29 October, 2024

    High Court of Delhi29 Oct 2024

    Case Name: Habibbur Rahman vs State of NCT of Delhi on 29 October, 2024 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 29 October, 2024 Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad Subject: Criminal Law – Default Bail – Section 167 CrPC – Official Secrets Act – Sanction Requirement – Completion of Investigation Key Legal Propositions 1. A chargesheet filed without a complaint does not render it incomplete, particularly when the offence also attracts provisions of the IPC where sanction is not a pre-requisite for filing the chargesheet. 2. For the purpose of Section 167(2) CrPC, filing of the chargesheet is sufficient compliance, and taking of cognizance is not material. 3. Sanction under Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 is not a pre-condition for filing a chargesheet; it is required only for taking cognizance of the offence. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC by the Additional Sessions Judge and the Revisional Court. The Petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 3 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and various sections of the IPC, relating to espionage and providing cl

11. Irfan Khan vs State (NCT) of Delhi on 18 April, 2023

    High Court of Delhi18 Apr 2023

    Case Name: Irfan Khan vs State (NCT) of Delhi on 18 April, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 18 April, 2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law, Arms Act, Section 482 Cr.P.C., Quashing of FIR Key Legal Propositions 1. The scope of exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited to determining if sufficient material exists to proceed with the trial. 2. Courts should exercise the power to quash FIRs sparingly and with circumspection, only in rare cases, and avoid conducting an enquiry into the veracity of allegations. 3. The recovery of an illegal weapon from the possession of the accused, coupled with their inability to provide a satisfactory explanation, is sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial, and does not warrant quashing of the FIR at this stage. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought quashing of proceedings arising from an FIR registered under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959, alleging possession of a prohibited button knife. The petitioner argued false implication, lack of evidence, and reliance on a replica chargesheet. The State opposed, citing prior cases against the petitioner and the recove

12. Gyarsi vs The State NCT of Delhi on 12 May, 2023

    High Court of Delhi12 May 2023

    Case Name: Gyarsi vs The State NCT of Delhi on 12 May, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 12 May, 2023 Bench: Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar Subject: Criminal Law – Probation of Offenders – Release on Probation – Habitual Offender – Consideration of Family Circumstances Key Legal Propositions 1. The Court may refuse to release a convict on probation considering their prior criminal history and status as a habitual offender. 2. While considering an application for probation under Section 360 Cr.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the Court may consider mitigating factors such as the convict being a woman with minor children and lacking other family support. 3. The Court has the discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone, particularly when the convict is a woman and sole caretaker of minor children, even if probation is not granted. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner, Gyarsi, convicted under Sections 454(II)/380/34 IPC, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking release on probation. The Sessions Court had previously dismissed her appeal and application for probation. The present petition challenges th

13. Sandip S/o Ambalal Koli (Jadav) vs Commissioner of Police on 18 December, 2023

    High Court of Gujarat18 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Sandip S/o Ambalal Koli (Jadav) vs Commissioner of Police on 18 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Date of Judgment: 18/12/2023 Bench: A.Y. Kogje and Rajendra M. Sareen, JJ. Subject: Preventive Detention, Habeas Corpus, Public Order, PASA Act Key Legal Propositions 1. Registration of FIRs relating to offences like theft, without evidence of a broader impact on the community, is insufficient to justify detention under preventive detention laws aimed at maintaining public order. 2. The detaining authority must demonstrate a nexus between the alleged activities of the detenu and a disturbance of public order, as distinct from mere law and order issues. 3. Reliance solely on statements of secret witnesses, without independent verification or justification for non-disclosure, is insufficient to establish the grounds for detention. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenges a detention order dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat, detaining the petitioner as a “dangerous person” based on two FIRs registered against him for offences under Sections 380, 454, 457, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argues t

14. Sejal @ Khalid S/o Sharif Pinjari vs State of Gujarat on 12 December, 2023

    High Court of Gujarat12 Dec 2023

    Case Name: Sejal @ Khalid S/o Sharif Pinjari vs State of Gujarat on 12 December, 2023 Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Date of Judgment: 12/12/2023 Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice A.Y. Kogje and Honourable Mr. Justice Rajendra M. Sareen Subject: Preventive Detention, PASA, Habeas Corpus, Article 226, Delay in Consideration of Representation Key Legal Propositions 1. Delay in considering a representation made against a detention order, coupled with a lack of communication regarding its outcome, vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and infringes upon the detenue’s fundamental rights. 2. The detaining authority should explore alternative measures, such as seeking cancellation of bail, before resorting to preventive detention, particularly when the accused has been granted bail by a competent court. 3. A significant delay between the commission of offenses, the arrest of the accused, and the passing of the detention order raises concerns about the urgency and necessity of the detention. Judgment Summary Background: These petitions challenge orders of detention passed under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985

15. Ishakhkhan Aspakhan Alikhan Pathan vs State of Gujarat on 19/10/2023

    High Court of Gujarat19 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Ishakhkhan Aspakhan Alikhan Pathan vs State of Gujarat on 19/10/2023 Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Date of Judgment: 19/10/2023 Bench: A.Y. Kogje and Rajendra M. Sareen Subject: Preventive Detention, Public Order, Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985 Key Legal Propositions 1. Registration of FIRs alone, without a demonstrable nexus to public order, does not justify preventive detention under the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985. 2. The detaining authority must demonstrate a threat to public order, going beyond a mere breach of law and order, to justify detention. Sporadic acts of violence against private individuals do not constitute a disturbance of public order. 3. Alternative remedies, such as cancellation of bail, should be considered before resorting to preventive detention, particularly when the alleged offences are already subject to the criminal justice system. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenges a detention order dated 03.08.2023 passed under the Gujarat Prevention of Antisocial Activities Act, 1985, detaining the petitioner based on four FIRs registered against him. The petitioner argues

16. Divyarajsinh @ Divlo Don Mangalsinh Chauhan vs State of Gujarat on 19/10/2023

    High Court of Gujarat19 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Divyarajsinh @ Divlo Don Mangalsinh Chauhan vs State of Gujarat on 19/10/2023 Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Date of Judgment: 19/10/2023 Bench: A.Y. Kogje and Rajendra M. Sareen, JJ. Subject: Preventive Detention, Habeas Corpus, Constitutional Law Key Legal Propositions 1. Non-supply of legible documents supporting a detention order is fatal to its validity, depriving the detenu of their right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 2. A mere registration of FIRs, without a demonstrable live and proximate link to a breach of public order, is insufficient to justify preventive detention under PASA. 3. Reliance on stale offences, particularly when no steps were taken to cancel bail in prior cases, indicates a lack of application of mind by the detaining authority and weakens the justification for continued detention. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenges a detention order passed under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA), alleging it is illegal, invalid, and violates Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution. The detention order relies on six FIRs registered

17. Mohmad Firoz S/o. Bashir Shaikh vs State of Gujarat on 12/10/2023

    High Court of Gujarat12 Oct 2023

    Case Name: Mohmad Firoz S/o. Bashir Shaikh vs State of Gujarat on 12/10/2023 Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Date of Judgment: 12/10/2023 Bench: Honourable Mr. Justice A.Y. Kogje and Honourable Mr. Justice Rajendra M. Sareen Subject: Preventive Detention, Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985, Public Order, Personal Liberty Key Legal Propositions 1. Registration of FIRs for offences like theft, without evidence of a direct impact on public order, is insufficient to justify preventive detention under PASA. 2. The detaining authority must demonstrate a nexus between the alleged anti-social activities of the detainee and a disturbance of public order, going beyond a mere breach of law and order. 3. Alternative remedies, such as seeking cancellation of bail, should be considered before resorting to preventive detention, particularly when the detainee has been granted bail in related offences. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenges a detention order dated 30.07.2023 issued under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA), alleging that the petitioner was a “dangerous person” based on three FIRs registered against him

18. Rabindra Alias Ravindra S/o Radhakrushna Mahapatra vs State of Gujarat on 08 September, 2023

    High Court of Gujarat8 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Rabindra Alias Ravindra S/o Radhakrushna Mahapatra vs State of Gujarat on 08 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Date of Judgment: 08/09/2023 Bench: Justice A.Y. Kogje and Justice Mauna M. Bhatt Subject: Preventive Detention – PASA Act – Public Order – Quashing of Detention Order Key Legal Propositions 1. Registration of offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, in itself, does not justify detention under the PASA Act unless it affects public order. 2. A mere breach of law and order is insufficient for invoking the PASA Act; the disturbance must affect the community or public at large. 3. Reliance on statements of secret witnesses without independent verification of the detenu’s background and antecedents is improper and vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner challenged a detention order dated 15.07.2023 issued under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA Act), alleging that the offences registered against him (theft) do not pose a threat to public order and do not justify preventive detention. The State did not file a counter-affidavit. Held: A. On

19. Manjitsingh Nihalsingh Tank (Sikligar) vs State of Gujarat on 16 March, 2023

    High Court of Gujarat16 Mar 2023

    Case Name: Manjitsingh Nihalsingh Tank (Sikligar) vs State of Gujarat on 16 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Date of Judgment: 16/03/2023 Bench: Justice Ashutosh Shastri and Justice Nisha M. Thakore Subject: Preventive Detention – Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 – Public Order – Quashing of Detention Order Key Legal Propositions 1. Registration of FIRs alone, without a nexus to public order, is insufficient to justify detention under PASA. 2. A mere disturbance of law and order does not equate to a disturbance of public order, requiring a broader impact on the community. 3. Routine use of preventive detention laws, without sufficient justification, is discouraged, and existing criminal law remedies should be prioritized. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenges an order of detention dated 11.01.2023 passed under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA), detaining the petitioner based on the registration of FIRs under Sections 457, 454, 380, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argues that the alleged offences do not impact public order and that existing criminal laws a

20. Chandansingh Jivansingh Dudhani (Sardar Sikligar) vs State of Gujarat on 16 March, 2023

    High Court of Gujarat16 Mar 2023

    Case Name: Chandansingh Jivansingh Dudhani (Sardar Sikligar) vs State of Gujarat on 16 March, 2023 Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Date of Judgment: 16/03/2023 Bench: Justice Ashutosh Shastri and Justice Nisha M. Thakore Subject: Preventive Detention – Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 – Public Order – Quashing of Detention Order Key Legal Propositions 1. Registration of FIRs alone, without a nexus to public order, is insufficient to justify detention under PASA. 2. A distinction must be drawn between ‘law and order’ and ‘public order’; mere breaches of law and order do not warrant preventive detention. 3. Routine and unjustified use of preventive detention laws, particularly when ordinary criminal law remedies are available, is discouraged. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenges an order of detention dated 11.01.2023 passed under Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (“the Act”), detaining the petitioner based on the registration of FIRs under Sections 457, 454, 380 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argued that the alleged offences do not impact public order and that existing cri