List of Current Affairs

Source – Kerala High Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Sophy Thomas held that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) cannot be exercised to quash a First Information Report (FIR) by a High Court if it was registered through procedure under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

• The Kerala HC gave this observation in the case of Udaykumar v. State of Kerala.

What is the Background of Udaykumar v. State of Kerala Case?

• The petitioner, who was charged with a crime, appealed to the HC to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC while the investigation was ongoing under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC.
• The petitioner contended that the criminal charges against them were not justifiable, and therefore, the FIR should be quashed.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Kerala HC observed that “Petitioner cannot challenge the investigation undertaken by Police, which was so directed by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC”.
• The court further said that it can initiate proceedings to quash FIR registered through Section 156(3) of CrPC under Section 482 of CrPC only if there are compelling and justifiable reasons, there cannot be any interference with the investigation proceedings.

What is Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

• About:
  • This section empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to conduct an investigation into a cognizable offence.
• Cognizable Offences:
  • Cognizable offences are defined under Section 2(c) of CrPC they are those for which a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant. These offenses are usually more serious in nature.
• Application by a Complainant:
  • If a person makes an application to the Magistrate and satisfies the Magistrate that an offence has been committed, the Magistrate can order the police to investigate the matter.
• Judicial Discretion:
  • The Magistrate has the discretion to determine whether a case merits a police investigation based on the facts presented.
• Purpose:
  • The initiation of criminal proceedings typically begins with the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) with the police. However, there may be situations where an individual, aggrieved by the commission of an offence, seeks the intervention of the judiciary to ensure a proper and unbiased investigation.
  • Section 156(3) comes into play when a Magistrate, who has the authority to take cognizance of an offense under section 190, is approached with a complaint or an application requesting the initiation of an investigation.
  • The provision empowers the Magistrate to direct the police or any other competent authority to conduct an investigation into the matter.

What are the Landmark Judgments Cited in the Case?

• Johny Joseph v. State of Kerala (1986):
  • The Kerala HC while considering the quashing of FIR registered through Section 156(3) of CrPC held that “In a case instituted on a police report, the court gets jurisdiction to try the offender, only when the final report is filed, and cognizance taken”.
• HDFC Securities Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2017):
  • The Supreme Court held that “An order under Section 156(3) of CrPC requiring investigation by Police cannot cause injury of irreparable nature. The stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate”.
    • Cognizance here includes proceeding under Section 482 of CrPC.

Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal explained the scenario under which splitting of trial cannot take place under Section 317 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of S. Mujibar Rahman v. State.

What is the Background of S. Mujibar Rahman v. State Case?

• First Information Report (FIR) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 212, 120B and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property Damages Act, 1982 against 31 accused.
• Presence of a few accused was not procure before the Magistrate.
• The Telangana High Court orderd the Trial Court to spilt the trial of accused who were present and who were absent under Section 317 (2) of CrPC.
• However, the order of magistrate passed for further investigation of case was still in process, hence the petitioner approached the SC against the order of HC to split the trial.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The SC observed that “When the HC permitted the splitting of the trial, important aspects were not noted by the HC one of which is that the order of further investigation passed by magistrate on 13^th February 2019”.
  • Therefore, this was not the stage at which the HC could have permitted splitting of the case.

What is Section 317 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

• About:
  • Section 317 (2) gives the court the power to adjourn or split proceedings in a criminal case.
  • This power is exercised when the court is satisfied that the personal attendance of the accused is not necessary for the time being.
• Legal Framework:
  • If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately.
• Grounds for Splitting:
  • The court can consider various grounds to decide whether the personal attendance of the accused is necessary.
    • Grounds may include illness of the accused, absence for a legitimate reason, or other circumstances that make the presence of the accused impractical.
• Discretion of the Court:
  • The decision to split proceedings is at the discretion of the court.
  • The court must weigh the circumstances of the case and determine whether it is in the interest of justice to proceed in the absence of the accused.
• Preventing Abuse of Process:
  • The provision helps prevent the abuse of the legal process. It allows the court to manage cases efficiently without compromising the fairness of the trial.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Shiv Shanker Prasad observed that a marriage cannot be treated as cruelty just because of small disputes or incidents between parties, Section 13A of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) can be taken into consideration in such cases.

• The Allahabad High Court gave this judgment in the case of Rohit Chaturvedi v. Smt Neha Chaturvedi.

What is the Background of Rohit Chaturvedi v. Smt Neha Chaturvedi Case?

• The parties got married in 2013 and blamed each other for non-consummation of their marriage. They cohabited till July 2014 and after that are living separately.
• The appellant/ plaintiff husband sought divorce alleging cruelty on refusal to consummate the marriage by the wife.
• Allegations were made on the basis of misbehavior of wife with the parents of the appellant who also assaulted them. She had instigated a mob to chase and assault the appellant accusing him to be a thief.
• She had lodged a criminal case alleging demand of dowry also.
• On the other hand, the respondent-wife alleged on the basis of illicit relationship of husband with his sister-in-law.
• Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Ghaziabad observed that it was the case of the parties that the marriage between them was consummated, blame could not be placed on the respondent.
• The respondent-wife had tried to meet the appellant-husband; however, she was prevented from meeting him. An incident regarding the mob chasing the appellant-husband at the behest of respondent-wife was disputed.
• The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Ghaziabad dismissed divorce case proceeding instituted by the appellant, under Section 13 of HMA and the same was challenged before the High Court.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Learned court below has erred in not considering the grant of alternative relief in terms of Section 13A of the HMA.

What is Section 13 and Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

• Section 13: Divorce:

(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party-

(ii) has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion; or

(vi) has renounced the world by entering any religious order; or

(vii) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of it, had that party been alive.

• Section 13A: Alternate Relief in Divorce Proceedings:
  • In any proceeding under this Act, on a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, except in so far as the petition is founded on the grounds mentioned in clauses (ii), (vi) and (vii) of sub-section (1) of Section 13, the court may, if it considers it just so to do having regard to the circumstances of the case, pass instead a decree for judicial separation.