List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that one trivial instance, unless serious with no clear evidence of involvement in the complainant's life, is not sufficient to implicate a person under the provisions of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The aforesaid observation was made in the case of Mahalakshmi v. The State of Karnataka.

What was the Background of Mahalakshmi v. The State of Karnataka Case?

• In this case, the appellant Mahalakshmi is the sister of accused Sarvan Kumar who is the former husband of respondent Rekha Bhaskaran.
• The accused and the respondent got married on 29^th June 2015.
• The respondent filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• After investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
• The appellant filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court to quash the charge sheet which was later dismissed by the Court.
• Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court.
• Allowing the appeal, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N Bhatti observed that the assertions made therein are very vague and general. One instance unless portentous, in the absence of any material evidence of interference and involvement in the marital life of the complainant, may not be sufficient to implicate the person as having committed cruelty under section 498A of the IPC.
• The Court further states that the appellant was not residing at the marital home, and was not even living in India, and in the absence of specific details that constitute cruelty, we would accept the present appeal.

What is Section 498A of the IPC?

• About:
  • Introduced in the year 1983, Section 498A deals with the situations when the husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. It states that -

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, cruelty means-

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

• • The offence under Section 498A of IPC is cognizable and non- bailable offence.
  • The complaint under Section 498A may be filed by the women aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. And if there is no such relative, then by any public servant as may be notified by the State Government on this behalf.
  • For commission of an offence under Section 498A, following necessary ingredients are required to be satisfied:
    • The woman must be married.
    • She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment.
    • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.
• Related Case Laws:
  • In the case of Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, (1999), the Supreme Court held that the essence of the offence in Section 498-A is cruelty. It is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the woman was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation.
  • In the case of Onkar Nath Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008), the Supreme Court held that Section 498-A IPC was introduced with the object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives.

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Dr. Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath have observed that in summons cases, Magistrates have power to stop proceedings under Section 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), instituted otherwise than upon complaint, when the presence of the accused cannot be secured despite the best efforts of the prosecution.

• The Kerala High Court gave this judgment in the case of Suo Moto High Court of Kerala v. State of Kerala and Anr.

What is the Background of Suo Moto High Court of Kerala v. State of Kerala and Anr. Case?

• The trigger for registering the suo motu case appears to have been the burgeoning figures showing the pendency of petty cases before the various Magistrate Courts in the State.
• Section 258 of CrPC which gives discretionary power to the Magistrate to stop the proceedings of a summons case instituted on police report could be invoked when there exists serious defect in the prosecution cases, which go to the root of the matter, rendering further proceedings impossible or futile.
• The court opined that wording of the provision was very wide and could cover many circumstances where the Magistrate can order stoppage of proceedings.
• The Magistrate shall exercise such powers sparingly in appropriate cases only.
• In petty offences, the Magistrate shall scrutinize the report submitted prosecution and on being satisfied that reasonably sufficient steps have been taken to ensure the presence of the accused or that the costs of ensuring the appearance of such accused far exceeded the maximum fine that is prescribed under the Statute for the offence concerned.
• In summons cases instituted otherwise than upon a complaint, that does not qualify as petty offences, the Magistrate shall scrutinize the report submitted prosecution and on being satisfied that reasonably sufficient steps have been taken to ensure the presence of the accused or that the costs of ensuring the appearance of such accused far exceeded the maximum fine that is prescribed under the Statute for the offence concerned.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Not only is the power vested in the Magistrate sufficiently wide in its nature and scope but also in cases where the presence of the accused cannot be secured notwithstanding the earnest and sincere efforts of the Prosecutor, the Magistrate is duty bound to exercise his/her power to stop the proceedings.
• The Magistrate must record reasons before stopping the proceedings and releasing the accused.

What is Section 258 of CrPC?

• Section 258: Power to stop proceedings in certain cases:
  • In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case release, the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.
• ‘Summon- Case’:
  • Summons cases are described in Section 2(w) of CrPC.
  • A ‘summon case’ refers to a legal case related to an offence that is not considered a warrant case.
  • Warrant cases typically involve severe punishments like the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding two years.
  • In contrast, summon cases involve offences where the punishment does not exceed two years of imprisonment. These cases are generally less serious in nature and need to be resolved quickly, without compromising the principles of a fair trial.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Justice Amit Sharma has observed that the words ‘other persons’ under Section 401(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC) cannot be construed as wide enough to include persons not affected by the order challenged in the revision petition.

• The Delhi High Court gave this judgment in the case of M/s Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

What is the Background of M/s Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Case?

• A criminal complaint under Sections 499/500/501/502 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (IPC) was filed against the petitioners and others by respondent No.2/FIITJEE Ltd. before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
• The petitioners had been summoned and the complaint was pending against them and was dismissed for non-prosecution qua other accused.
• The dismissal order was challenged in revision by FIITJEE.
• The court held that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the impugned order passed in respect of co-accused persons as the order could not be stated to have been on merits under Section 203 CrPC, which is at a pre-summoning stage.
• It was observed that the complaint was dismissed qua other accused persons for ‘non-prosecution’, not on merits. The dismissal order did not affect the case pending against the petitioners.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• An order dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution or in default, which is made the subject matter of the revision, cannot be equated with “revision petitions” that are filed on substantive grounds or touch on the merits.
• The order dismissing the complaint for default or non-prosecution does not touch upon the factual or legal merits of the complaint.

What is Section 203 of CrPC?

• Section 203: Dismissal of Complaint.
  • If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.
  • Section 202 of CrPC deals with ‘Postponement of issue of process’.