List of Current Affairs

Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court conveyed disappointment at an order passed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Bharwad Sanotshbhai Sondabhai v. State of Gujarat and raised questions about the appropriateness of allowing personal settlements in serious criminal cases.

• The Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid case granted bail to an accused in a murder case on the basis of a settlement between him and the complainant.

Background

• The incident took place on 17^th September 2021, the accused attacked the victim who later succumbed to the injuries.
• The accused had approached the trial Court seeking bail twice and the trial Court declined to grant any relief as he was facing a charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The accused approached the High Court and filed an application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• While taking into consideration the settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High Court granted him bail subject to imposition of certain conditions.
• Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court
• The Supreme Court quashed the order of the High Court and directed the accused to surrender promptly before the trial court.

Court’s Observations

• The bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal criticized the State of Gujarat for not challenging the bail order.
• The bench raised questions about the appropriateness of allowing personal settlements in serious criminal cases of such magnitude and the implications of granting bail based on an individual's lack of prior convictions for serious offenses.
• The bench further held that the accused was not entitled to any relief and had remained in custody for barely six months before he was released on bail in respect of a serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC. His antecedents also indicate his propensity towards committing crime.

Legal Provisions

Section 302, IPC

• Section 302 of IPC prescribes the punishment for murder. It states that-
  • Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
• Murder is dealt with in Section 300 of IPC and this offence is non-bailable, cognizable, and triable by the Court of Sessions.

Section 439, CrPC

• This Section deals with the special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. It states that -

(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct-

(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in subsection (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub- section.

(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing a person on bail be set aside or modified:

Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.

(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter (chapter 33) be arrested and commit him to custody.

• In Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. the State of Maharashtra (2014), the Supreme Court held that in situations where the accused has not approached the magistrate in the first instance for bail, he can approach the Sessions Court or the High Court directly for bail under Section 439 of CrPC.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

In the case of Zunaid v. State of UP, the Supreme Court has observed that on the receipt of final report, Magistrate has discretion to treat protest petition as a complaint case.

Background

• The appellant (Zunaid) in the present case had lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that the accused respondents armed with sharp-edged weapons had attacked him and his family and also abused them due to an old enmity.
  • FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Final Police Report was submitted by the Investigating Officer (IO), after completing the investigation.
• Being aggrieved by the Final Report, the appellant filed a Protest Petition before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM).
• The concerned CJM rejected the Final Report of the IO and directed that the Protest Petition be registered as the Complaint Case.
• The CJM, taking recourse of Sections 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and after recording the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, issued summons to the accused respondents.
• Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents-accused preferred an application under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court (HC) which was allowed by the Allahabad HC.
• Hence the present appeal by appellant (Zunaid) in SC arises out of the orders passed by the HC.

Court’s Observations

• The bench comprising of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Dipankar Datta of SC made note of the case Rakesh & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (2014) in which it was held -
  • There remains no shadow of doubt that on the receipt of the police report under Section 173 CrPC, the Magistrate can exercise three options:
    • Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action.
    • Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) CrPC based on the police report and issue process; and
    • Thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200.
• SC therefore while allowing appeal against the HC order, observed that the CJM was just, legal and proper in rejecting the Final Report of the IO and taking recourse of Sections 200 and 202 CrPC under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Police Report

• A police report is an official record made to report on the findings of the investigation carried out under CrPC for the commencement of proceedings before Magistrates.
• It is defined under Section 2(r) of CrPC as a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 173 CrPC.

Section 173 - Report of police officer on completion of investigation.

(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward it to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report; a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating—

(a) the names of the parties;

(b) the nature of the information;

(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;

(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;

(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;

(g) whether he has been forwarded into custody under section 170.

(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)].

(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

Protest Petition

• CrPC does not provide a specific definition for a Protest Petition but is a significant part of criminal law.
• When the Police investigates a case, after its completion, the Police Report is submitted to the Magistrate under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.
• The aggrieved or the complainant, if not satisfied with the police report, may file a protest petition before the Magistrate concerned stating his/her dissatisfaction and may pray for further investigation. At the same time the aggrieved person may also pray for further proceedings under Section 200 and 202 of CrPC.
  • Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 focuses on the postponing of the issue of process (against the accused) on the part of the Magistrate.
• If the protest petition is accepted, then the Magistrate takes cognizance of the matter under Section 190 of CrPC, and issues notice to the accused person.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

The FIR pertained to Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 504 which are as follows:

• Section 147 - Punishment for rioting —Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• Section 148 - Rioting, armed with deadly weapon—Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• Section 149 - Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object —If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
• Section 307 - Attempt to murder.— Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 2 imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
  • Attempts by life-convicts — When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
• Section 323 - Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt —Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
• Section 324 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means —Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• Section 504 - Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace —Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Source: Karnataka High Court (CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.70/2022 (IO))

Why in News?

The Karnataka High Court has ordered that filing a suit for property partition after a lapse of 90 years of passing a final decree is not maintainable if the possession has not been delivered as per the preliminary and final decrees in the matter of P Ramaprasad v. Thyagaraj R & Others.

Background

• The present matter is concerned with one Nanjareddy who had three sons, Ramareddy, Lingareddy and Munireddy.
• The family possessed properties in Bangalore City, a family partition amongst the members of the Nanjareddy family took place, by a final decree of Court of District Judge at Bangalore dated 14th May 1928.
• The plaintiff is the grandson of Nanjunda S/o Munireddy.
• Munireddy got a definite share as per the judgment and decree, he died during the pendency of the suit leaving behind his three sons without getting any share in suit property towards his share of 1/3rd which was declared by the Court.
  • It was stated that there was a cordial relationship between the aggrieved party and possession even after partition continued with Ramareddy.
  • It was bonafidely believed by them that there was no room for suspicion in said possession but now they have declined to give a share. Hence, they filed a suit for the relief of partition of 1/3rd legitimate share.
• A plaint was filed containing arguments that partition among the legal heirs of deceased Munireddy has not been affected and the plaintiff being the legal heirs of deceased Munireddy is entitled to a share.
• The defendant appeared and filed a statement of objection, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (CPC) for rejection of plaint contending that suit is barred by law and also that suit is barred under Section 47 of CPC.
• The Trial Court, having considered the matter before it, opined that Section 47 of the CPC is not attracted and also the suit is not barred by limitation.
• Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is filed.

Court’s Observations

• The Karnataka High Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Dr. Chiranji Lal (D) By Lrs v. Hari Das (D) By Lrs (2005), where the court clarified that the commencement of the limitation period for executing a decree (pertaining to partition) starts from the date of the decree, making it enforceable from that very date.
• The Court also mentioned that final decree was passed on 14th May 1928 and instead of filing execution petition and obtaining possession, after lapse of 90 years, once again suit is filed for the relief of partition therefore nothing remains to be determined.
• Justice H P Sandesh, while relying on above verdict dismissed the suit and held that the Trial Court committed an error in concluding that the suit is not barred by limitation and the very approach is erroneous and hence it requires interference.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1973(CPC)

The provision for rejection of plaint is contained under Order 7 Rule 11.

Order VII – Plaint

Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint — The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases —

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law;

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.

Section 47 - Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree.— (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.

(3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.

Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.

Explanation II. —

(a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and

(b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.