List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajaram Sharma v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., has held that as per the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the High Court should examine carefully whether the allegations would constitute the offences alleged against the person-accused.

What was the Background of Rajaram Sharma v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the appellant approached the Allahabad High Court for quashing of the criminal case pending against him for committing an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (IPC).
• The High Court dismissed the application.
• Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• Setting aside the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal observed that when the High Court was called upon to invoke power under Section 482 of CrPC raising such contentions, it was incumbent upon the High Court to consider the question whether the allegations would constitute the offences alleged against the appellant.
• The Court while setting aside an order of a High Court which denied to quash the criminal proceedings pending against a person-accused, expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court's order by noting that the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence were not made out.

What is Section 482 of CrPC?

About:

• Section 482 of CrPC deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court, whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
• It states that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers.

Purpose:

• Section 482 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.
• It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised.
  • The first purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.
  • The second purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
  • The third purpose is that the inherent power may be exercised otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Case Laws

• In Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal and Anr. (1981), the Supreme Court held that the inherent power of the Court could not be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and Anr.(2007), the Supreme Court held that when the first petition under Section 482 CrPC was withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies, if any, available in law, the High Court would not be denuded of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC on being petitioned again and the principle of res judicata would not stand attracted.
• In Vinod Kumar, IAS. v. Union of India and Ors. (2021), the Supreme Court observed that dismissal of an earlier petition under Section 482 CrPC would not bar filing of a subsequent petition thereunder in case the facts so justify.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Allahabad has held that any stray statements made by any person, may be inappropriate, improper and rude, but it will not constitute an offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

What was the Background of Judith Maria Monika Killer @ Sangeeta J.K. v. State of U.P. and Anr. Case?

• In this case, the complainant filed a complaint case against the petitioner and ten others under section 500 of IPC.
• On the basis of the allegations, the court proceeded to record the statements of the complainant and thereafter, passed an order summoning the petitioner under section 504 of IPC.
• The petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge assailing the summoning order. Both the sides were heard, the revisional court affirmed the order of summoning.
• Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court.
• The High Court set aside the aforesaid orders.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed that any such stray statements made by any person may be inappropriate, improper and rude, however, in my view, they do not bring the Act within the four corners of section 504 as defined in IPC.
• The Court further stated that a stray statement made in a careless manner, not intending that it may provoke a person to break the public peace or commit any other offence.
  • Even if, for the sake of argument, uttering of such words are taken as intentional insult, however in my opinion the same cannot be construed as of such degree so as to provoke any person to cause breach of peace.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 500, IPC

• Section 500 of IPC deals with the punishment for defamation, whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 354 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• It states that whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• Any person who by spoken or written words, signs or visible gestures creates or publishes any imputation on any person with an intention to harm the reputation of that person, shall be made liable for the offence of defamation.
• An act of defamation in India can occur in two forms, libel and slander.
  • Libel refers to a kind of defamation that is present in some permanent form such as in writing, printed or a picture.
  • Slander refers to a kind of defamation that is present in an unwritten form such as spoken words, gestures or representation made with hands.

Section 504, IPC

• Section 504 of IPC deals with the intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• It states that 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.
• It comprises of following ingredients:
  • Intentional insult
  • The insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted.
  • The accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar gave observation with regards to Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

• The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors.

What is the Background of Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Case?

• The suit was related to a property gifted to the appellants by their great-grandmother.
• In response to their suit, two of the three defendants did not file a written statement resulting to which the trial court pronounced judgment against them.
• SC was dealing with the scenario where defendant fails to submit written statement.

What is the Court’s Observation?

• The SC held that “mere failure or neglect of a defendant to file a written statement controverting the pleaded facts in the plaint, in all cases, may not entitle him to a judgment in his favour unless by adducing evidence he proves his case/claim”.
• The SC dismissed the appeal.

What is Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)?

• About:
  • Order 8 Rule 10 of CPC provides rules regarding written statement.
• Order 8 Rule 10: Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.—
  • Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up:
  • Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement.
• Landmark Case:
  • SC in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999) gave following observations:
    • The court has not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written statement nor should the court proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because a written statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the court.
    • In a case, specially where a written statement has not been filed by the defendant, the court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.
    • Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must see to it that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint.
    • It is a matter of the court's satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement.
    • But if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy.
    • Such a case would be covered by the expression ‘the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved’ used in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order 8, or the expression ‘may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit’ used in Rule 10 of Order 8.