List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of UP and Ors., held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was never meant to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between the adolescents.

What was the Background of Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of UP and Ors. Case?

• As per prosecution story, the applicant, in connivance with the other accused persons, is stated to have enticed away a 15-year-old minor girl on the night of 13^th May 2023.
• The accused was booked under Section 363 and Section 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 7and 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.
• The applicant has been languishing in jail since 18th May 2023 and so a bail application has been filed before the High Court of Allahabad.
• The Counsel for the accused argued that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the present case to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him.
• The High Court allowed the bail application of the accused.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Krishan Pahal observed that the POCSO Act was formulated to protect children under the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation. Nowadays more often than not it has become a tool for their exploitation. The Act was never meant to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between adolescents.
• The Court further noted that the fact of consensual relationship borne out of love should be of consideration while granting bail because it would amount to perversity of justice if the statement of victim was ignored and accused was left to suffer behind jail.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?

POCSO Act, 2012

• This Act was passed in 2012 under the Ministry of Women and Child Development.
• It is a comprehensive piece of legislation designed to protect children from crimes including sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.
• It is gender neutral act and considers welfare of the child as a matter of paramount importance.
• It provides for the establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offences and related matters and incidents.
• Death penalty as a punishment for offences of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault was introduced in this act by the POCSO amendment bill, 2019.
• Section 7 of the POCSO Act deals with Sexual assault. It states that whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.
• Section 8 of the POCSO Act deals with the punishment for sexual assault. It states that whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

• Section 363, IPC:
  • This section deals with the punishment for kidnapping. It states that whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Section 366, IPC:
  • This Section deals with kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.
  • It states that whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, 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 whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall also be punishable as aforesaid.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the matter of Kum. Geetha, D/O Late Krishna & Ors v. Nanjundaswamy & Ors.

What is the Background of the Kum. Geetha, D/O Late Krishna & Ors v. Nanjundaswamy & Ors. Case?

• The plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and separate possession.
• Four years after the suit was instituted, the defendants filed a petition seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
• Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaint does disclose a cause of action.
• The High Court proceeded to allow the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC in part, and rejected the Plaint with respect to property.
• Hence, the present appeal is presented in the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia stated that “In simple terms, the true test is first to read the plaint meaningfully and as a whole, taking it to be true. Upon such reading, if the plaint discloses a cause of action, then the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC must fail. To put it negatively, where it does not disclose a cause of action, the plaint shall be rejected.”
• The SC further determined that the Karnataka High Court incorrectly applied the established principles of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Therefore, the SC ruled that the High Court's decision to partially reject the plaint was legally incorrect.

What is the Provision of Rejection of Plaint?

• The provision for rejection of plaint is provided under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.
  • 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.

• • In K. Akbar Ali v. Umar Khan (2021), SC has opined that the grounds mentioned under Order VII Rule 11 are not exhaustive i.e., the court can reject the plaint even on other grounds if it thinks fit to do so.