List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia & Prasanna B Varale held that mere breach of contract, by one of the parties, would not attract prosecution for criminal offence in every case.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.

What was the Background of Naresh Kumar & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr Case?

• The appellants challenged the order of the Karnataka High Court dismissing their petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to quash the First Information Report (FIR) filed against them.
• The dispute arose from a contract between the appellants (Assistant Manager and Managing Director of a bicycle manufacturing company) and respondent no. 2 for the assembly, transport, and delivery of bicycles.
• The appellants contended that the FIR, alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating, stemmed from a primarily civil dispute.
• An admitted settlement occurred between the parties after the FIR, where the appellants agreed to pay an additional amount to the respondent, which was duly paid and accepted.
• The High Court, however, refused to accept the appellants' contention and held that prima facie, a case of cheating was made out against them.
• Hence, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court disagreed with the findings of the High Court, asserting that the dispute between the parties was primarily civil in nature.
• The settlement between the parties further indicated a lack of criminal intent on the part of the appellants.
• Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and quashing the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR while noting several landmark cases where criminal dispute of civil nature was dealt by the court.

What were the Landmark Judgements Cited in this Case?

• Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013):
  • The Supreme Court recognized the necessity to sparingly exercise the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 and emphasized the duty to quash criminal proceedings essentially of a civil nature. The Court held:
  • While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court must be cautious.
  • This power is to be used sparingly and only to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
  • Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein.
  • Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court.
  • A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence.
  • In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.
• Randheer Singh v. State of U P (2021):
  • The Supreme Court underscored that criminal proceedings should not be utilized as a tool for harassment.
• Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2023):
  • The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that disputes which are essentially civil in nature but given a criminal cloak can be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC.
• Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. (2023):
  • It was established by the Supreme Court that a mere breach of contract does not necessarily warrant criminal prosecution.
• Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015):
  • The Supreme Court clarified that not every breach of contract constitutes the offence of cheating; fraudulent or dishonest intention must be proven.

What is the New and Old Criminal Law on Inherent Powers of the High Court?

Source: Patna High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Patna High Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., has held that the act of a married woman of staying in the house of an old man of different religion after being left by her husband does not constitute adultery.

What was the Background of Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr. Case?

• It is the case of the petitioner that the opposite party (wife of the petitioner) filed a complaint against the petitioner and her matrimonial relations alleging the commission of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party has been residing with another person of different religion which amounts to adultery within the meaning of Section 497 of IPC.
• It was further contended that the opposite party is not entitled to get any maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
• The plea of the petitioner was dismissed by the Family Court.
• Thereafter, a criminal revision petition was filed before the High Court of Patna which was later dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Bibek Chaudhuri observed that if residing in the house of the father's friend amounts to adultery there cannot be any social bounding in the society and if this Court is persuaded to hold that staying in the house of an old man of different religion by a married lady amounts to adultery than the entire social relation between man and man, man and women is to be looked into only in terms of sexual relationship.
• It was also stated that this Court is not in a position to consider all the relationships in terms of sexual relationships. Thus, the act of a woman seeking refuge in the home of her father's friend, who follows a different religion, after being left by her husband does not constitute adultery.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 497 of IPC

About:

• Section 497 IPC criminalized adultery.
• It imposed culpability on a man who engages in sexual intercourse with another man’s wife.
• Adultery was punishable with a maximum imprisonment of five years.
• Women though were exempted from prosecution.
• This section was inapplicable when a married man engaged in sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman.
• The object of this section was to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Legal Provision:

• This Section can be read as follows:
  • Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such a case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.

Decriminalization of Adultery:

• A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court led by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and comprising of current (CJI) D.Y Chandrachud and Justices A.M Khanwilkar, R.F Nariman and Indu Malhotra in the case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) held that adultery is not a crime and struck it off the IPC.
• It however clarified that adultery would continue to remain a civil wrong and a valid ground for divorce.

Section 498A 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 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.

Case Law:

• In the case of Dinesh Seth v. State of NCT of Delhi (2008), the Supreme Court held that Section 498-A of IPC has a wider spectrum and it covers all cases in which the wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of the husband which may result in death by way of suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) or even harassment caused with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property.