List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) reinforced the fundamental procedural character of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (CrPC) and emphasized that minor technical flaws and irregularities should never obstruct the quest for substantial justice in the matter of Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand.

Background

• In 2016, the appellant (Bijoy Shankar Mishra) filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(NI Act) with regard to dishonored cheques in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand.
• The court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), took cognizance, and issued summons to the accused.
• JMFC on examining the records, concluded that the court did not have territorial jurisdiction (procedural lapse) in terms of Section 142(2)(a) of NI Act.
• The appellant took remedial recourse by moving an application under Section 407 of CrPC before the High Court (HC).
• An order was passed that the cheques in question were presented in the account of the appellant at Adityapur, district Saraikela-Kharsawan, therefore, only the courts at Saraikela-Kharsawan possessed territorial jurisdiction.
• Thereafter, appellant preferred a petition under Section 482 of CrPC before the HC which was dismissed and the order of JMFC was sustained.
• No opportunity was afforded to the appellant to address this jurisdictional issue before the HC.
• Hence the appellant appealed to the SC.

Court’s Observations

• The SC observed that this is a fit case to exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) read with Section 406 of CrPC.
• Reliance was placed on the case of Yogesh Upadhyay and Another v. Atlanta Limited (2023) whereby it was reaffirmed that CrPC primarily serves procedural purposes, and it must not impede the quest for justice; Section 406 of CrPC must come to rescue whenever there is miscarriage of justice.
• Further the Court observed that JMFC passed the order without realizing its legal consequences, that there was a lack of proper legal guidance to the appellant.
• Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N Bhatti set aside earlier orders, directed that the continuation of trial in the criminal complaint case in the court of the JMFC, at Jamshedpur, Jharkhand while stating that such procedural defect/lapse had a remedy, and was not substantial as to constitute lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Legal Provisions

Constitution of India,1950

Article 142 - It grants special powers to the Supreme Court of India to deliver justice and enforce its judgments in cases where there may be a need to do so in the interest of justice, even if there is no specific legal provision that directly addresses the situation.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 406 - Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals —

(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.

(2) The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney-General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.

(3) Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

• The provision must be exercised sparingly and only when justice is apparently in grave peril.
• The primary grounds for such transfers typically include:
  • Fair and Impartial Trial: When the court believes that a fair and impartial trial cannot be conducted in the original jurisdiction due to various factors like local bias, threat to witnesses, or any other reason that may compromise the fairness of the trial.
  • Interest of Justice: In the interest of justice, if the SC deems it necessary to transfer a case to ensure that justice is served.
  • Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings: When multiple cases involving the same issues or parties are pending in different courts, the SC can transfer them to one court to avoid contradictory judgments and to streamline the legal process.
  • Convenience: If the convenience of the parties, including witnesses and litigants, would be better served by transferring the case to another jurisdiction then a decision of transfer must be made.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

• Dishonour of cheque is provided under Section 138 and Section 142 mentions about Cognizance of offences.
• It can be summarized as follows:
  • Only a court not inferior to JMFC or Metropolitan Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence related to the dishonor of cheques under Section 138 and that too upon a written complaint made by the payee or holder in due course of the dishonored cheque.
  • The complaint must be filed within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under Section 138(c). However, the court may consider the complaint even if it is filed after the prescribed period if the complainant can establish sufficient cause for the delay.
  • Section 142(2) provides that:
    • The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction, —
    • (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or
    • (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account is situated.

Case Law

Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat (2012): The SC in the present case held that Sections 138 to 142 of the NI Act are designed to penalize individuals who are aware of the fact that they lack sufficient funds in their bank account but still issue a cheque to settle an existing debt or obligation, constituting an act of deception. These provisions are not intended to penalize individuals who have a legitimate reason for not honoring their debt obligations.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood held that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

Background

• In this case, the appellant is the original defendant.
• He applied in the suit filed by the respondents for rejection of the plaint under Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
• A written statement was filed by the appellant invoking the contention of res judicata.
• The learned Single Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi.
• The High Court asserted that the finding on the plea of res judicata recorded by the Single Judge was not correct and it had erred in accepting the appellant's plea of res judicata.
• The Division Bench of the High Court further held that the suit needs to be decided on merits with a modification that the issue of res judicata will remain open and the learned Single Judge will frame an issue on res judicata along with the other issues.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
• While disposing off the appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench at this stage could have decided the plea of res judicata raised by the appellant on its merits.

Court’s Observations

• Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal observed that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC and clarified the scope and application of Rule 11(d) of CPC and its relationship with the doctrine of res judicata.
• The Court held that apart from the pleadings in the earlier suit, several other documents relied upon by the appellant in their application under Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC needed to be considered to decide the issue of res judicata.
• The Court restated that the law regarding the scope of Rule 11 of Order VII of CPC is well-established. It emphasized that the Court can only consider the averments made in the plaint and, at most, the documents produced along with the plaint. The defense presented by a defendant and the documents they rely upon cannot be taken into account while deciding such an application.
• The Court further emphasized that the issue of res judicata entails a detailed examination of various elements, including the pleadings in the earlier suit, the judgment of the Trial Court, and the judgment of the Appellate Courts.

Legal Provisions

Principle of Res Judicata

Section 11 of CPC contains the principle of Res Judicata. It states that -

• No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
• Explanation I - The expression former suit shall denote a suit which has been decided prior to a suit in question whether or not it was instituted prior thereto.
• Explanation II - For the purposes of this section, the competence of a Court shall be determined irrespective of any provisions as to a right of appeal from the decision of such Court.
• Explanation III - The matter referred to above must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted, expressly or impliedly, by the other.
• Explanation IV - Any matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.
• Explanation V - Any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have been refused.
• Explanation VI - Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
• Explanation VII - The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree.
• Explanation VIII - An issue heard and finally decided by a Court of limited jurisdiction, competent to decide such issue, shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, notwithstanding that such Court of limited jurisdiction was not competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised.

Case Laws

• In Mathura Prasad v. Dossabhoi N B Jeejeebhoy (1970), the Apex Court held that previous proceedings would operate as res judicata only in respect of issues of facts and not on issues of pure questions of law.
• In the case of P.C. Ray and Company Private Limited v. Union of India (1971), Calcutta High Court held that the plea of res judicata may be waived by a party to a proceeding.
• In Srihari Hanumandas Totala v. Hemant Vithal Kamat (2021), the Supreme Court held that res judicata cannot be invoked as a ground for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

Order VII Rule 11, CPC

Rule 11 of Order VII deals with the Rejection of Plaint. It states that -

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 the 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.

Source: Indian Express

Why in News?

The Delhi High Court (HC) has held that an individual's decision of choosing a life partner cannot be affected by matters of faith and religion and that the right to marry is an “incident of human liberty.”

Background

• A petition was filed by an interfaith couple after marrying against the wishes of their families.
• The couple stated that they both have attained the age of majority and have got married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in July 2023.
• The couple sought directions to be given to the authorities for providing them protection as they were facing threats, majorly from the family of the girl.
• The court took note of the petition and directed that the contact number of police officials concerned be provided to petitioners who shall be free to get in touch with them whenever the need arises.

Court’s Observations

• Justice Saurabh Banerjee of Delhi HC has observed that individuals have the inherent right to choose their life partners, and neither the State, society, nor the parents of the individuals should have the authority to interfere with or restrict this right when it concerns "two consenting adults."
• The HC while allowing the plea, stated that "The right to marry is an incident of human liberty. The right to marry a person of one’s choice is not only underscored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but is also an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees the right to life.”
• The HC further directed that the SHO concerned and beat constable should also take all possible steps to provide adequate assistance and protection, as needed, to the petitioners in accordance with the law.

Right to Marry

Constitutional Provision

• Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to marry the person of one's choice.
  • Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty — No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
• Some of the legislations that govern marriages in India can be enlisted as:
  • Special Marriage Act, 1954
  • Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872
  • Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936
  • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
  • The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006

Case Laws

• Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006): The case pertains to right to marry and inter-caste marriage in which the SC held that as the petitioner was a major, she had the right to marry whoever she wanted and that there was no statute prohibiting an inter-caste marriage.
• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. and Ors (2018)
  • It is popularly known as the Hadiya case or the Love-Jihad Case.
  • In the present case a girl named Akhila a Hindu, converted to Islam (now called Hadiya) in order to marry a Muslim guy. She was 25 years old at that time.
  • Her father initiated a habeas corpus writ petition in the Kerala High Court, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution.
  • It was contended by him that she had been subjected to influence or manipulation by religious extremists.
  • The marriage was annulled by the Kerela High Court.
  • A Special Leave Petition was filed by Hadiya’s husband in the SC.
  • The SC while stating that “exercise of the jurisdiction to declare the marriage null and void, while entertaining a petition for habeas corpus, is plainly in excess of judicial power” held her marriage to be valid.
  • The SC further stated that “the right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution and society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners”.