Need two citation of supreme court judgement

The first one you will get in 2 days time as it is not yet uploaded s we speak.
The second on eis news for me hence I also love to view it.
For third one here is the link https://indiankanoon.org/doc/594165/
Rgds 

Hm

Hello ?

  I could not get any citation till now . anyone can help here?

1. Supreme court citation/judgment (full text) on Khusboo case :

Nothing illegal about live-ins or pre-marital s*x : SC

 COULD NOT FIND

2. Karnatka high court

When a report is submitted by protection officer in DV case, it is deemed to be true and cannot be taken as false

though I cud find only the ILR no ILR 2009 KAR 4295 but not the judgment in detail

 COULD NOT FIND

3. If any other SC judgment on DV Act other than Batra vs Batra

Kindly help

Dear Author,

I've these two judgements in nur favour on a single topic.

Nothing illegal about live-ins or pre-marital s*x : SC

New Delhi: In an observation that will cheer votaries of pre-marital s*x and live-in-partners, the Supreme Court opined that a man and woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence.

"When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence ? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence," a three judge bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan observed.

The court said even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together according to mythology.

The apex court said there was no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital s*x.

The apex court made the observation while reserving its judgement on a special leave petiton filed by noted south Indian actress Khusboo seeking to quash 22 criminal cases filed against her after she allegedly endorsed pre-maritial s*x in interviews to various magazines in 2005.

The judges grilled the counsel for some of the complainants in the case and repeatedly stressed that the perceived immoral activities cannot be branded as offence.

The argument of the counsel was that her comments allegedly endorsing pre-marital s*x would adversely affect the minds of young people leading to decay in moral values and country's ethos.

"Please tell us what is the offence and under which section. Living together is a right to life," the apex court said apparently referring to Article 21 which granted right to life and liberty as a Fundamental Right.

The apex court further said the views expressed by Khusboo were personal.

"How does it concern you. We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law ?" the bench asked the counsel.

The apex court further asked the complainants to produce evidence to show if any girls eloped from their homes after the said interview.

"How many homes have been affected can you tell us," the Bench asked while enquiring whether the complainants had daughters. When the response was in the negative, they shot back, "Then, how are you adversely affected ?"

Khusboo had approached the apex court after the Madrash High Court in 2008 dismissed her plea for quashing the criminal cases filed against her throughought Tamil Nadu.

and another is :- 

     'Sex among consenting adults no statutory offence'

                                                                                                    New Delhi, Apr 29, DHNS:

The Supreme Court has said that there is no statutory offence when adults willingly engage in s*xual relations outside the marital settings.

 “While it is true that the mainstream view in our society is that s*xual contact should take place only between marital partners, there is no statutory offence that takes place when adults willingly engage in s*xual relations outside the marital settings, with the exception of adultery as defined under Section 497 of the IPC,” said a bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justices B S Chauhan and Deepak Verma while quashing the criminal complaints against film star Khushboo.

The judgment

“A major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or ‘live with anyone she likes,” said the 41-page judgment, which was released here on Thursday.  The bench said there are numerous other decisions both in India and abroad which mandate that obscenity should be gauged with respect to contemporary community standards that reflect the sensibilities as well as the tolerance levels of an average reasonable person.

Justifying quashing of the cases against Khushboo, the apex court said: “At no point of time the appellant described the s*xual act or said anything that could arouse s*xual desires in the mind of a reasonable and prudent reader.” The court observed that the statement by the actress was made in the context of a survey which has touched on numerous aspects relating to the s*xual habits of people in big cities.

While dismissing the arguments of the complainants, the judges said: “We must also respond to the claim that the appellant’s remarks could have the effect of misguiding young people by encouraging them to indulge in premarital s*x. This claim is a little far-fetched since the appellant had not directed her remarks towards any individual or group in particular.”

Her remarks cannot be construed as an open endorsement of s*xual activities of all kinds. “If it were to be considered so, the criminal law machinery would have to take on the unforceable task of punishing all writers, journalists or other such persons for merely referring to any matter connected with s*x in published materials.” The bench said a culture of responsible reading is to be inculcated amongst the prudent readers.

“Morality and criminality are far from being co-extensive. An expression of opinion in favour of non-dogmatic and non-conventional morality has to be tolerated as the same can not be a ground to penalise the author.”

Misreporting

While on reporting court matters by the journalists, the Supreme Court pulled both electronic and print media for misreporting during the hearing of the case when the judges had made certain observation on Hindu gods Krishna and Radha.

“It is therefore not only desirable but imperative that electronic and news media should also play a positive role in presenting to general public as to what actually transpires during the course of the hearing and it should not be published in such a manner so as to get unnecessary publicity for its own paper or news channel,” the bench observed.

article 21