List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and J B Pardiwala noted that when it comes to quashing of the First Information Report (FIR), criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline the petition.

• The Apex Court gave the observation in the matter of Mohammad Wajid v. State of UP.

Background

• An FIR was lodged by the first informant against the accused alleging offences punishable under following sections:
  • Section 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
  • Sections 395, IPC: Dacoity
  • Section 504, IPC: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace
  • Section 506, IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation
• The said FIR was lodged one year after the occurrence of incident, it was lacking date and time, and no plausible reason for the inordinate delay in lodging FIR was given.
• The High Court declined to entertain the writ application for quashing the FIR and rejected the same.
• The accused approached the Apex Court.
• The respondents relied on the fact that the accused has criminal antecedents.
• However, the Apex Court found the case lodged by the first informant fabricated and allowed to quash the FIR.

Court’s Observations

The Court gave following observation:

• It said delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR.
• However, delay with other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case rendering the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently improbable, may at times become a good ground to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.
• The state owes a duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished but at the same time it also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are unnecessarily harassed.

First Information Report

• The term FIR is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
• The term has not been used in the code except in Section 207 CrPC which requires the Magistrate to furnish to the accused a copy of the FIR recorded under Section 154 (1) CrPC.
• The information received under section 154 (1) CrPC is termed as FIR.

Fundamentals of FIR:

• It is a piece of information given to the police officer.
• The information must relate to a cognizable offence.
• It is a piece of information reported first in point of time.
• It shall be reduced to writing by the officer in charge of the police station or under his direction, if given orally.
• It shall be read over to the informant.
• It shall be signed by the person giving the information.
• A copy of the information as recorded under Sub- section (1) of Section 154 shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
• If an officer in charge of a police station refuses to record the information, the informant may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police.

Quashing of FIR

• An FIR can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.
• The aforementioned provision renders an inherent power to a High Court to meet the ends of justice.
• A petition for quashing an FIR and related proceedings against the accused must be filed before the respective High Court having competent jurisdiction.
• It is quashed when the Court finds the FIR lodged on frivolous or malafied grounds.
• The Supreme Court has the supervisory jurisdiction to quash an FIR under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Guidelines in the State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992)

The following parameters were laid down by court for quashing FIR:

• Where the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
• Where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence.
• Where the evidence collected in support of the information do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
• Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
• Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are absurd and inherently improbable.
• Where there is an express legal bar or different procedure engrafted in CrPC or any Act regarding institution and continuance of the proceedings.
• When maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Failing to disclose assets or concealing assets of a candidate, their spouse, or dependents constitutes a corrupt practice ruled the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Abida Begum v. Mohd Ismail & Ors.

Background

• The present matter in the High Court relates to a writ petition filed by Abida Begum under Articles 226 and 227 of the COI praying to set aside the judgement passed by Senior Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Shahapur (Trial Court).
• The original petition was filed by Mohammed Ismail in the Trial Court challenging Abida Begum's election on the ground that she had failed to disclose her and her husband's assets.
• It was further contended that the said suppression would amount to a corrupt practice by Abida Begum in terms of Section 19(1)(b) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
• The trial court quashed the election of the candidate, Abida Begum, to Gram Panchayat.
• Abida Begum hence appealed to High Court and contended that Mohammed Ismail failed to make all the contestants have to be made a party therefore Trial Court ought to have dismissed the petition.
• The High Court agreed with Begum's contention that under Section 15(2)(a) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and said that all the electoral contestants should have been made party.
• The High Court also pointed out that the Trial Court ought to have dismissed the election petition in limine (at the beginning).

Court’s Observations

A Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj made following observations:

• Non-disclosure of assets could result in the disqualification of the candidate from participating in a panchayat election under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.
• Suppression of such information by itself is enough to attract disqualification and that there is no requirement to prove that the suppression resulted in an adverse impact on the election prospects of another candidate.

Case Law

The Apex Court in the matter of Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary S.N.Shukla v. Union of India & Others (2018) made following observations:

• It was made mandatory for candidates contesting elections and their spouses & dependents to declare their assets and source of income at the time of nomination.
• The obligation of a candidate to disclose both his assets and the source of income is a part of the Fundamental Right of citizens to know, under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

Legal Provision

Constitution of India, 1950

Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. —

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993

• Section 15 - Election petition -

(2) A petitioner shall join as respondent to his petition -

(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or of any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates.

• Section 19 - Grounds for declaring election to be void -

(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) if the Designated Court is of opinion -

(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his agent.

Source – Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of Nabal Thakur v. The State held that Delhi Police’s Investigating Officers must produce the rape victim before the concerned hospital for conducting the procedure within 24 hours, even in cases where the gestation period of the pregnancy is less than 20 weeks.

Background

• The accused had called the prosecutrix to his house on some false pretext on 24^th November 2020 and had repeatedly raped her.
• The prosecutrix was 16 years old at the time of the incident.
• Thereafter the prosecutrix was found to be four weeks and five days pregnant.
• The accused filed a bail application before the High Court which was later denied.

Court’s Observations

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the following guidelines to be followed by the doctors and the Delhi Police while dealing with cases of medical termination of pregnancy of victims of rape:

• Where an order for medical termination of pregnancy has been passed, the Delhi Police’s Investigating Officers must produce the victim before the concerned hospital for conducting the procedure within 24 hours, even in cases where the gestation period of the pregnancy is less than 20 weeks.
• Directions have been given to Delhi Government’s Department of Health and Family Welfare and Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to ensure that the existing guidelines or Standard Operating Procedure for conducting examination of the victims of sexual assault are circulated in all the hospitals in the national capital.
• The abovesaid Ministries are also directed to circulate the additional directions contained in the present judgment which be added to the existing SOPs, that in case the victim is pregnant and there are orders for Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) including for preservation of fetus, the investigating officer will place such order before the Superintendent of the hospital concerned, who will ensure that the doctor concerned who is assigned the duty of medical termination of pregnancy conducts the same with utmost caution.
• The concerned doctor conducting medical termination of pregnancy will ensure that the fetus is preserved, and the victim is not discharged in a hurry, which may result in putting the life of the victim in danger and loss of evidence in a sexual assault case.
• In cases where medical examination of a victim of sexual assault is conducted, all the hospitals concerned will ensure that along with the original MLC (Medio Legal Certificate) as well as discharge summary of such victim, a typed copy of the same is also prepared by the concerned hospital and provided to the investigating officer within a period of one week.
• The aforesaid directions of this Court be circulated, within 15 days of issuance of this order and its receipt by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi in all the hospitals in Delhi.
• These guidelines will be read in addition to the guidelines issued by this Court in Minor R Thr Mother H v. State NCT of Delhi (2023).

Legal Provisions

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP)

• The MTP Act came into force on 1st of April 1972.
• The MTP Act of 1971 and its Rules of 2003 prohibit unmarried women who are between 20 weeks to 24 weeks pregnant to abort with the help of registered medical practitioners.
• This Act was updated more comprehensively in 2020, and the revised law became effective in September 2021 with the following amendments.
• Increase in the maximum gestational age at which a woman may obtain a medical abortion from 20 weeks under the MTP Act of 1971 to 24 weeks.
• A single qualified medical professional’s opinion might be used to access the MTP up to 20 weeks into the pregnancy and from 20 weeks up to 24 weeks, the opinion of two registered medical practitioners would be required.
• After seeking the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, the pregnancy can be terminated up to 24 weeks of gestational age under the conditions given below:
  • If the woman is either a survivor of sexual assault or rape or incest;
  • If she is a minor;
  • If there is a change in her marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (due to widowhood or divorce);
  • If she suffers from major physical disabilities or she is mentally ill;
  • Termination of pregnancy on the grounds of fetal malformation incompatible with life or the possibility of a seriously handicapped child being born;
  • If the woman is situated in a humanitarian setting or disaster or stuck in the emergency as declared by the Government.
• Abortion is performed based on fetal abnormalities in cases where pregnancy has progressed over 24 weeks.
  • A four-member Medical Board, established in each state under the MTP Act, must grant permission for this type of abortion.
• In X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi (2022), the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment that there should not be any distinction between married and unmarried women in seeking an abortion of pregnancy in the 20-24 weeks terms arising out of a consensual relationship. It stated that all women are entitled to safe & legal abortion.