List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., has held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property.

What is the Background of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr. Case?

• The Appellant (wife) and the Respondent (husband) got married in Bengaluru on 2^nd August 2007.
• The appellant accompanied the respondent to London. The respondent allegedly abandoned her and forcefully confined her to the residence of her sister­-in­-law. At the same time, respondent returned to India.
• Subsequently, the appellant gave birth to a male child.
• Thereafter, the appellant lodged a complaint stating that the respondent, on the pretext of arranging for their travel to London, took away the minor child’s passport and jewellery items belonging to the appellant.
• The respondent also lodged a complaint alleging that the appellant had forged his signatures on the minor child’s passport application.
• Consequently, a case commenced before the Trial Magistrate only for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
• Thereafter, the Trial Magistrate dismissed the appellant’s discharge application on the ground that the question as to whether an offence under Section 420 of IPC was made out or not would be decided during the course of trial.
• Against the Trial court's order of rejecting the discharge application, the appellants preferred a criminal revision before the High Court of Karnataka, resulting in dismissal of the same.
• Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was later allowed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan observed that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property.
• The Court further states that cheating generally involves a preceding deceitful act that dishonestly induces a person to deliver any property or any part of a valuable security, prompting the induced person to undertake the said act, which they would not have done but for the inducement.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 420, IPC

• Section 420 of IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 318 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS).
• It states that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• There are three components of this offence which are as follows:
  • The deception of any person.
  • Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person.
  • Mens rea or dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.

Section 34 of IPC

• Section 34 IPC states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• Under the ambit of this section, every person engaged in the commission of a crime is held responsible by virtue of his or her participation in the criminal act.
• The following are the major ingredients of this section:
  • A criminal act must be done by several persons.
  • There must be a common intention of all to commit that criminal act.
  • Participation of all the persons is necessary in the commission of the common intention.
• Case Law:
  • In the case of Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1993), Supreme Court held that it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation, the common intention can be formed in the course of the occurrence as well.

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ajay Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., has held that in Hindu Law the marriage is not considered as a valid marriage unless and until the saptapadi is performed.

What was the Background of Ajay Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Case?

• In this case, it has been a complaint has been lodged that the petitioners have abducted the prosecutrix/victim, forcibly bringing her to Jabalpur.
• Subsequently, they took her to the High Court premises and coerced her into signing specific documents pertaining to the marriage of the victim with one of the petitioners.
• Thereafter, the petitioners have filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) for quashing of the proceedings.
• The counsel for the petitioners stated that a marriage had been performed by following the ritual of exchange of garland (Varmala) and filling up of Maang with vermilion (Sindoor).
• The High Court dismissed the petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed that in Hindu Law, the marriage is not a contract and unless and until saptapadi is performed, there cannot be said to be a valid marriage. So, the Court emphasized on the importance of performance of Saptapadi for a valid Hindu marriage
• The Court further noted that counsel for petitioners could not point out any provision of law which acknowledges the performance of marriage by exchange of garland (Varmala).

What is Saptapadi?

About:

• Saptapadi, which generally means taking seven steps around the holy fire under the mandap at the time of marriage, is a fundamental and common ceremony performed among various Hindu communities.
• The marriage will be considered complete and valid upon the completion of the seventh round around the holy fire.

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), talks about the ceremonies of a Hindu marriage. It states that -

(1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto.

(2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the Saptapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken.

Case Law:

• In the case of Smriti Singh & Ors v. State U.P & Ors. (2023), the Allahabad High Court highlighted the significance of Saptapadi, where the bride and groom jointly take seven steps around the sacred fire, completing and binding the marriage when the seventh step is taken.