List of Current Affairs

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

The Kerala High Court's decision in the matter of Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala and Other highlighted that courts can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be vexatious, frivolous, or motivated by an ulterior motive, even if the FIR contains false allegations of an offense. The court observed that complainants with extraneous motives can craft FIRs to include necessary ingredients.

What was the Background of Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala and Other?

• The complainant’s husband availed the loan of Rs. 15 Lakh from Citizens Co-operative Society, Thrissur District in 2016. And the husband defaulted on the repayment of the loan.
• Officials from the Citizens Co-operative Society demanded the repayment of the loan amount from the husband.
• On 24th February 2019 at 10.00 a.m., the accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the complainant's house.
• The accused persons allegedly abused the complainant and threatened her and her husband with dire consequences.
• A case was filed against the accused under Sections 143, 147, 447, 294(b), 506(i), and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The accused claimed that the complaint was false and filed as vengeance against the demand for loan repayment by the Co-operative Society.
• The accused filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) , seeking to quash the Final Report and all further proceedings before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The court observed that the case arose out of the demand for loan arrears from the husband of the complainant, and there is a possibility of false implication to wreak vengeance on account of the demand for the loan amount.
  • The Court observed that the intention behind filing the case was to nullify the demand for loan repayment, indicating a false implication.
• The Court noted that while exercising its inherent powers of jurisdiction, it need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but can consider the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case.
• Justice A. Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court held that the Court can look beyond an FIR to quash the criminal proceedings when they are manifestly vexatious, frivolous, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.
  • The Court observed that when the complainant is motivated due to extraneous reasons, they can make sure that the FIR contains the necessary ingredients of the alleged offense.
• If the Court sees that the criminal proceedings are instituted maliciously, it is a good enough reason to quash the proceedings.
• Accordingly, the High Court quashed the final report and all further proceedings in the Magistrate Court.

What is Section 528 of BNSS?

• About:
  • Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) deals with the calling for records to exercise powers of revision, which was dealt with under Section 482 of CrPC, earlier.
  • This Section deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court. 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 528 lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.
  • It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised:
    • to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.
    • to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
    • to secure the ends of justice.

What are the Cases where the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be Invoked?

• In the following cases, the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked:
  • To quash the proceedings in police investigation consequent upon a FIR made to the police in a cognizable case; to interfere with the statutory rights of the police to investigate a cognizable case.
  • To quash an investigation just because the FIR does not disclose any offence when investigation could be done based on other materials.
  • To enquire about the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
  • Inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only against final orders and not against interlocutory orders.
  • To order stay of arrest of accused during investigation.

Section 528 of BNSS and Bail Provisions

• The inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS cannot be used by the High Court to reopen or alter an order, after disposing a bail petition decided on merits.
• Bail cannot be granted by virtue of Section 528 CrPC.
• If bail is granted for a bailable offense, there is no provision in CrPC to cancel it. However, the High Court can cancel it by invoking inherent power on the grounds of tampering with the witness, bribing the officials, or an attempt to abscond etc.

Section 528 of BNSS (Earlier 482 of CrPC) and Quashing of the Proceedings

• R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab (1960), the Supreme Court ruled that in the following cases the inherent jurisdiction of High Court could be exercised to quash the proceedings:
  • Where there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of proceedings.
  • Where the allegations in the FIR or complaint do not constitute the offence alleged.
  • Where either there is no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge or the evidence adduced clearly failed to prove the charge.

Case Law

• In the case of M/s Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998), the Supreme Court held that a fresh investigation or re-investigation after filing of chargesheet by police can be ordered by High Court under Section 482 of CrPC to secure the ends of justice.
• In the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and Ors. (2008), the Supreme Court cautioned against entertaining Section 482 CrPC petitions if the FIR remains unregistered, advocating for the pursuit of alternative remedies like approaching police officers or the Magistrate.
• In the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.,(2023), the Supreme Court held that a second petition under Section 482 of CrPC would not be maintainable on grounds that were available for challenge at the time of filing of the first petition.

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar, held that for obtaining a decree of specific performance, the plaintiff must prove their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). 

• The Karnataka High Court made observations in the case of Lakkamma & Others v. Jayamma. 

What is the Background of Case? 

• The defendants (appellants) had agreed to sell a property to the plaintiff (respondent) for Rs. 17 lakhs through an agreement dated 2nd August 2007. 
• The plaintiff paid Rs. 50,000 as advance on the date of the agreement and another Rs. 50,000 on 10th September 2007 as demanded by the defendants. 
• The agreement stipulated that the defendants would execute the sale deed within 6 months after getting the revenue records transferred in their names. 
• The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement as the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. 
• The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff directing the defendants to execute the sale deed. 
• The defendants appealed against this judgment. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court allowed the appeal by the defendants and set aside the trial court's judgment decreeing specific performance in favor of the plaintiff. 
• The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract as required under Section 16(c) of the SRA. 
• However, the court granted a decree directing refund of the total earnest money of Rs. 1 lakh (Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 50,000) paid by the plaintiff along with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective dates of payment till realization. 
• The court also allowed the plaintiff to withdraw the Rs. 16 lakhs deposited by her before the trial court, along with any interest accrued on that amount. If no interest accrued, the defendants were directed to pay interest at 12% p.a. on Rs. 16 lakhs from the date of deposit till realization. 

What is the Law Related to Specific Performance?  

• Specific performance constitutes an equitable remedy granted by a court to uphold the contractual commitments among the parties. 
• Unlike a claim of damages, which involves compensation for not fulfilling the contractual stipulations, specific performance operates as a remedy that enforces the terms agreed between the parties. 
• It is governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). 
• Section 10 of SRA deals with the specific performance in respect of contracts. It states that- 
  • The specific performance of a contract shall be enforced by the court subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 11, Section 14 and Section 16. 
• The Supreme Court in the case of Katta Sujatha Reddy v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects (P) Ltd. (2023) held that the relief of specific performance of a contract can only be granted when the party claiming such relief shows its readiness and willingness to perform its obligations under the contract. 

What are the Landmark Judgments Related to Specific Performance?  

• His Holiness Acharya Swamy Ganeshdasji v. Seetharam Apar (1996): 
  • The Supreme Court explained the difference between 'readiness' and 'willingness' in this judgment.  
  • 'Readiness' refers to the plaintiff's financial capacity and ability to perform the contract, while 'willingness' relates to the plaintiff's conduct and intention to fulfill the contractual obligations. 
• Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010): 
  • In this case, the Supreme Court held that even if the defendant has committed breach of contract, the plaintiff cannot obtain a decree for specific performance if the plaintiff fails to aver and prove their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contractual obligations. 
• Saradamani Kandappan v. S.Rajalakshmi (2011): 
  • In this important judgment, the Supreme Court observed that with the steep rise in real estate prices, it becomes inequitable to grant specific performance if the purchaser delays payment without justification from the vendor's side.  
  • The courts need to apply greater scrutiny in such cases. 
• Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar (2024) 
  • This recent Supreme Court judgment dealt with the evidentiary value of the testimony given by a power of attorney holder.  
  • It held that a power of attorney holder cannot become a witness on behalf of the party and depose to prove that party's readiness and willingness to perform the contract. 

 What is Section 16 of Specific Relief Act, 1963? 

• Eligibility for Compensation  
  • Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favor of a person who would not be entitled to recover compensation for its breach. 
• Incapability, Violation, Fraud, or Subversion  
  • Specific performance cannot be enforced for a person who: 
    • Has become incapable of performing the contract's essential terms 
    • Violates any essential term of the contract that remains to be performed by them 
    • Acts in fraud of the contract 
    • Willfully acts at variance with or in subversion of the relationship intended by the contract 
• Averment and Proof of Performance  
  • Specific performance cannot be enforced for a person who fails to: 
    • Aver (assert) that they have performed or have always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract required from them. 
    • Prove the above, except for terms whose performance has been prevented or waived by the defendant. 
• Explanation 
  • For contracts involving payment of money, the plaintiff is not required to actually tender (offer) or deposit the money in court unless directed by the court. 
  • The plaintiff must aver (assert) performance of or readiness and willingness to perform the contract according to its true construction (interpretation).