List of Current Affairs

Source: Chhattisgarh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court in the matter of Suman Sharma & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., has held that the complaint filed by the second wife against her husband and in laws under the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is not maintainable.

What was the Background of Suman Sharma & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the complainant lodged a written complaint against the co-accused (Subhash Sharma) and the petitioners.
• The complainant alleged that the co-accused and the petitioner number 1 were already married and immediately after her marriage the petitioner and the co-accused started harassing her.
• Thereafter, she filed a written complaint for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against the co-accused and the petitioners.
• Challenging the complaint filed by the complainant, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before the Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court.
• During the course of hearing, the learned Single Judge finding conflict with the decision rendered in the matter Shivcharan Lal Verma & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) and Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015) has referred the matter of the division bench of the High Court.
• The division bench held that there is no apparent conflict with the decisions rendered in the aforesaid cases and so the matter is listed before the single judge for deciding the petition under Section 482 of CrPC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sachin Singh Rajput observed that the complaint lodged by second wife for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC would not be tenable.
• The Court further held that there was no apparent conflict with the decision rendered by the three judge’s bench of the Supreme Court in Shivcharan Lal Verma & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) and Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015).
  • In the case of Shivcharan Lal Verma & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007), the Supreme Court held that when the marriage has been found to be null and void, the conviction under Section 498-A of IPC would not be sustainable.
  • In the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2015), the Supreme Court held that in the absence of definition of husband to specifically include such persons who contract marriages and cohabit with such woman in the purported exercise of their role as husband is no ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 498-A of IPC.
• Even if there is a conflict in the judgments of the Supreme Court of Benches of equal strength, then it is the earlier one which has to be followed and accordingly, in the instant case Shivcharan Lal Verma Case has to be followed.

What is Section 498-A of IPC?

About:

• Section 498A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
• It states that if the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjected such woman towards cruelty would be punished with imprisonment for a term which might extend to 3 years and may also be liable for fine.
• For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
  • 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
  • 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 this section is a cognizable and a non bailable offence.
• The complaint under Section 498-A 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.
• A complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 498-A can be filed within 3 years of the alleged incident. However, Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) enables the Court to take cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.

Essential Elements:

• For commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary elements 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.

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 Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009), the Supreme Court held that for holding an accused guilty under Section 498A of IPC, it has to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time to the lodging of the complaint and petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of IPC.

Source: Jharkhand High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Md. Reyazul & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, has held that Section 100(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) does not require the witnesses of search and seizure to attend the court as a witness unless specially summoned by the court.

What was the Background of Md. Reyazul & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand Case?

• In this case, the petitioners were sentenced by the Lower Court to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The period of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners during the trial was ordered to be set off.
• An appeal was filed by the petitioners in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge who upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the lower court.
• Thereafter, a criminal revision application has been filed against the judgement passed by the Additional Sessions Judge before the High Court of Jharkhand.
• The senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the lower court as well as the appellate court had wrongly come to a finding regarding the guilt of the petitioners and had not considered the fact that the prosecution failed to examine the seizure witnesses.
• The High Court partly allowed the revision application.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Ambuj Nath observed that in order to prove the factum of recovery, it is sufficient for the prosecution to adduce the seizure list in evidence. Section 100(5) CrPC does not require the witnesses of search and seizure to attend the court as a witness unless specially summoned by the court.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 100 of CrPC

• Section 100 of CrPC deals with the persons in charge of closed places to allow search whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 103 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). It states that —

(1) Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein.

(2) If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub-section (2) of section 47.

(3) Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency.

(4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it.

(6) The occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person.

(7) When any person is searched under sub-section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person.

(8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

Section 414 of IPC

• Section 414 of IPC deals with the assisting in concealment of stolen property whereas the same provision has been covered under Section 317(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
• It states that whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
• The term stolen property has been defined in Section 410 of IPC.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar heard a petition on an application of Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

• The Karnataka High Court observed this in the case of M/s Achiever Agri India (P) Ltd & Others v. State by Sub Inspector Hebbagodi Police Station.

What was the Background of M/s Achiever Agri India (P) Ltd & Others v. State by Sub Inspector Hebbagodi Police Station?

• The current petition in the case was filed seeking transfer of 16 First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in different Police Stations to one of the Courts where the said crimes are pending to conduct trial together.
• The court was supposed to discuss the application of Section 406 and 407 of CrPC for transfer of FIRs.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The KHC held that “Since the petitioners have sought for transfer of FIRs it cannot be said that a case is pending in the subordinate Court to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 407 of CrPC”.
• The HC further said that transfer of FIR amounts to transfer of investigation.
  • Investigations cannot be transferred by invoking powers under Section 407 of CrPC. The cases and appeals can be transferred under the powers of Section 407 of CrPC.

What is Section 406 of CrPC?

• Section 406:
  • This section empowers the Supreme Court to transfer any criminal case or appeal from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to a Criminal Court subordinate to another High Court.
  • The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney-General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.

What is Section 407 of CrPC?

• Section 407:
  • This section gives the High Court the authority to transfer cases and appeals within its own jurisdiction from one Court to another.
  • It can be done on the following grounds:
    • that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or
    • that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or
    • that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses or is expedient for the ends of justice.
• Application Procedure under Section 407:
  • All applications for an order under subsection (1) must be made by motion.
  • Unless the applicant is the Advocate-General of the State, the motion must be supported by affidavit or affirmation.
  • If the applicant is an accused person, the High Court may direct them to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation that the High Court may award under subsection (7).
• Notice to Public Prosecutor under Section 407:
  • Accused persons making such applications must provide written notice to the Public Prosecutor, along with a copy of the grounds for the application.
  • No order shall be made on the merits of the application unless at least twenty-four hours have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of the application.
• Transfer of Case or Appeal under Section 407:
  • If the application is for the transfer of a case or appeal from any Subordinate Court, the High Court may, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of justice, order a stay on the proceedings in the Subordinate Court pending the disposal of the application.
  • The stay, however, shall not affect the Subordinate Court's power of remand under Section 309.
• Dismissal of Application under Section 407:
  • If an application under subsection (1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it finds the application frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay compensation to any opposing party, not exceeding one thousand rupees, as it deems proper in the circumstances.
• Trial Procedure under Section 407:
  • When the High Court orders under subsection (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall follow the same procedure as the original Court would have observed if the case had not been transferred.
• Non-Affecting Provision under Section 407:
  • Nothing in this section shall affect any order of the Government under Section 197.