List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand has held that the chargesheet should abide by all the particulars of Section 173 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Dablu Kujur v. The State of Jharkhand Case?

• In this case, the appellant has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
• By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi.
• The High Court has dismissed the said application seeking his release on bail in respect of the case registered for the offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC).
• The appeal was disposed of by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench Comprising of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal observed that that the investigating officers while submitting the chargesheet do not comply with the requirements of the said provision.
• It was states that though it is true that the form of the report to be submitted under Section 173(2) of CrPC has to be prescribed by the State Government and each State Government has its own Police Manual to be followed by the police officers while discharging their duty, the mandatory requirements required to be complied with by such officers in the Chargesheet are laid down in Section 173, more particularly sub-section (2) thereof.
• It was further held that the pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of CrPC.

What is a Chargesheet?

About:

• A chargesheet, as defined under Section 173 CrPC, is the final report prepared by a police officer or investigative agency after completing their investigation of a case.
• It is submitted before the Court for initiating the criminal trial.

Chargesheet Should Contain:

• The chargesheet should contain the names of the parties, nature of the information and details of the offences.
• Whether the accused is under arrest, in custody, or has been released, whether any action was taken against him, these are all important questions answered in the chargesheet.
• The chargesheet, complete with all the documents, forms the basis for the prosecution case and for the charges to be framed.

Time Limit for Filing Chargesheet:

• A chargesheet must be filed against the accused within a prescribed period of 60-90 days, otherwise, the arrest is illegal, and the accused is entitled to bail.
• The prescribed time limit for filing charge sheet is as follows:
  • Offence triable by Magistrate: 60 days
  • Offences triable by Sessions Court: 90 days
• According to CrPC, if the charge sheet is not filed within the prescribed time mentioned above, the accused has a right to default bail.

Procedure after Filing the Chargesheet:

• After preparing the chargesheet, the officer-in-charge of the police station forwards it to a Magistrate, who is empowered to take notice of the offences mentioned in it so that the charges can be framed.

Case Law:

• In the K Veeraswami v. Union of India & Others (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that the chargesheet is a final report of the police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of B R Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta held by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the filing of the suit for asserting the rights of the plaintiffs/respondents could be said to be amounting to contempt of the Court.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of M/S Shah Enterprises Thr. Padmaben Mansukhbhai Modi v. Vaijayantiben Ranjit Singh Sawant & Ors.

What was the Background of M/S Shah Enterprises Thr. Padmaben Mansukhbhai Modi v. Vaijayantiben Ranjit Singh Sawant & Ors Case?

• The case revolves around a disputed land initially leased to Bapusaheb Bajirao Sawant in 1953-54 for 99 years by the Original Owners. However, in 1956, the lease was canceled.
• In 1969, the land was sold to 67 individuals, later divided into 67 portions.
• Legal heirs of Bapusaheb filed a suit in 1972 claiming possession based on the lease, but a compromise agreement in 1972 between the heirs and the original owners established that the lease was canceled in 1956, nullifying the heirs' claim. In 1986, the appellant bought a portion of the land.
• In 2014, heirs of Bapusaheb filed a suit against several parties, including the appellant.
• Despite the appellant's notification of the prior compromise, the suit continued.
• The appellant filed a contempt petition, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that the facts of Skipper Construction were markedly dissimilar to those of the present case.
• While the consent terms between the respondents' predecessor and the original owners were court-approved, the respondents, asserting ancestral rights over 2000 acres and alleging collusion in obtaining the decree, initiated the suit.
• The appellant actively participated in the proceedings, framing preliminary issues and seeking rejection of the plaint, all of which were denied.
• The court concluded that filing the suit did not amount to contempt.
• Consequently, it upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal without costs, emphasizing that these observations pertained solely to the contempt proceedings, with no influence on the suit's merits.

What are the Major Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) Involved in the Case?

• Section 11 of CPC:
  • This section deals with the concept of res judicata, which means “a matter already judged”.
  • It prevents the same matter between the same parties from being re-litigated in subsequent proceedings.
  • If a matter has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit and has been adjudicated upon by a competent court, it cannot be re-agitated between the same parties in a subsequent suit.
• Section 151 of CPC:
  • This section vests inherent powers in the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the court's process.
  • It empowers the court to issue necessary directions or orders not provided for by any specific provision of the CPC but essential for the proper administration of justice.
• Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC:
  • This rule empowers the court to reject a plaint if it appears from the statement of facts that the suit is barred by any law.
  • Essentially, if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action or is otherwise legally deficient, the court has the authority to dismiss it at the outset without proceeding to trial.
• Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC:
  • This rule provides for the framing of issues in civil cases.
  • It allows the court to determine the matters in controversy between the parties by framing specific issues that require adjudication.
  • These issues act as focal points for the trial and help narrow the dispute's scope, facilitating a more efficient and effective trial process.

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Raksha and Anr v. State of UP & Ors., has held that as per the Hindu Law, a person having a spouse alive cannot live in an illicit and live-in relationship in contravention of the provisions of the law.

What was the Background of Raksha and Anr v. State of UP & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the petitioners (petitioner no.1 and no.2) have filed a plea before the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction to the police authorities to provide them police protection against respondent (alleged husband of petitioner no. 1) and his family members.
• It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the parents of petitioner no.1 had solemnized the marriage of petitioner no.1 with respondent when petitioner no.1 was 13 years old and minor. The alleged marriage of petitioner no.1 is invalid and therefore she is voluntarily living in live-in-relationship with petitioner no.2 with her own sweet will.
• The Standing Counsel has submitted that petitioner no.1 is already married, and his marriage has not been declared void by any Court of competent jurisdiction and she is in live-in-relationship with the petitioner no.2 and such type of relationship cannot be supported by the Court.
• Dismissing the plea, the High Court stated that the Court is not against live in relationships but is against illegal relations.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Renu Agarwal observed the Court could not protect such type of relationship which is not supported by law. If the court indulges in such type of cases and grants protection to illegal relationships, then it will create chaos in the society, hence such type of relationship cannot be supported by the Court.
• It was further held that no law-abiding citizen who is already married under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can seek the protection of this Court for an illicit relationship, which is not within the purview of the social fabric of this country. The sanctity of marriage pre-supposes divorce. If she has any difference with her husband, she has first to move for getting separated from her spouse as per law applicable to the community if Hindu Law does not apply to her.

What are the Legal Provisions in Relation to Live in Relationships?

About:

• There is no law specifically addressing live-in relationships, but the Indian judiciary has developed jurisprudence over the years through a series of judgements.
• According to the Supreme Court judgment in Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978), live-in relationships in India are legal but subject to caveats like age of marriage, consent and soundness of mind.
• The legality of live-in relationship stems from the Articles 19(a)- right to freedom of speech and expression and Article 21- protection of right to life and personal liberty of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006), ruled that two persons of opposite sex living together are not doing anything illegal.
• The Supreme Court in Velusamy v. D Patchaimal (2010) laid down criteria for live-in relationships to be legal.
  • The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
  • They must be of legal age to marry.
  • They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
  • They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

Case Laws:

• In the case of Indra Sarma v. VKV Sharma (2013), the Supreme Court ruled that the woman partner in a live-in relationship is protected under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, 2005.
• In the case of Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan & Another v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Others (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that children born to partners in live-in relationships can be considered legitimate. Such children are eligible to be part of family succession.