List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sangeeta Mishra v. State of U.P. and 6 Others has held that a second First Information Report (FIR) is permissible when it has different version of discoveries and evidence found in the same case for which the first FIR was filed.  

What was the Background of Sangeeta Mishra v. State of U.P. and 6 Others Case? 

• In the present case, FIR was filed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• It was alleged that a burnt dead body of one unknown person was found and through the postmortem report it was found that the death was done by throttling and to destroy the evidence the body was burnt. 
• After investigation by the police officer the body was identified by the applicant and her son, and a missing report was already filed by them before the incident. 
• It was stated that the father-in-law of the applicant executed family settlement regarding his property and divided share of their sons which was not within the knowledge of the applicant or her husband. 
• A dispute arose among the husband of the applicant, father-in-law, Jeth and Devar, thus a legal notice was sent by mother-in-law of the applicant to the applicant for compliance of condition of family settlement. 
• To resolve the aforesaid dispute, one Chandra Mohan (brother-in-law of the applicant) came to her husband and accordingly, the applicant's husband went along with him. 
• When the husband did not return the applicant searched for him but could not find him. 
• The police ignored the applicant’s request to register a missing complaint, and, in the meantime, the present case was filed against the applicant. 
• After filing the chargesheet the applicant was arrested and sent to jail. After her release the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 
• The trial court rejected the application without considering that the FIR for the murder of the husband of the applicant has already been registered for which the applicant was already held guilty. 
• The revision application was also rejected without considering the fact that the real culprits are still unnoticed. 
• Aggrieved by all these decisions the applicant preferred the present appeal before the Allahabad High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court in this case observed that: 
  • There cannot be two FIRs against the same accused based on the same case. 
  • When a case has rival versions of each other than two FIRs may be filed for the same and Police can investigate under both the FIRs. 
  • When the first FIR does not cover the ambit of the second FIR, then the Second FIR would be permissible. 
• The Allahabad High Court, therefore, set aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded back to settle the case based on a settled position of law. 

What is FIR? 

About: 

• Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) states the provisions related to Information in cognizable cases. 
• Earlier it was covered under Section 154 of CrPC. 
• It is commonly known as the FIR though this term is not used in the Code. As its nickname suggests, it is the earliest and the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by an officer in charge of a police station.  

Objectives: 

• The main objective of the FIR is to set the criminal law in motion and to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity and to obtain true or nearly true versions of the events connected with a crime. 
• It provides a check on the undesirable tendency on the part of the prosecution to fill the gaps on their own. 
• To safeguard the accused against subsequent variations or additions. 

Essentials: 

• It is an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence. 
• It is given by the informant either orally or in writing. 
• If given oral, it should be reduced to writing by the officer in charge of a police station or under his direction and if given in writing or reduced to writing shall be signed by the person giving it. 
• The information reduced in writing must be read out to the informant and a copy thereof should be given to the informant forthwith free of cost. 
• The substance of the information shall be entered in a book in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. This book is called General Diary. 

Contents: 

• It need not contain each and every minute incident that occurred. 
• It requires only the substance of information received to be mentioned and the same cannot be said to be the repository of every factum. 

Evidentiary Value of FIR: 

• The established principle of law that FIR cannot be assumed as a substantive piece of evidence and can only be considered as an important piece of evidence. 
• It can neither be used against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused nor to corroborate or contradict other witnesses. 
• It can only be used for certain limited purposes such as: 
  • FIR is proved by the prosecution for the purpose of corroborating the statement of the maker. It can also be used to contradict the first informant. 
  • It can be used to show that the implication of the accused in the case was not an afterthought. 
  • Where FIR can be tendered in evidence as a part of the conduct of the informant, it can be used as substantive evidence. 
  • It the informant dies, and the FIR contains a statement as to the cause of his death or the circumstances relating to his death, it may be used as substantive evidence.

Landmark Judgements:

• Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1979): 
  • The Court in this case opined that the second FIR would be maintainable where new discovery is made on factual foundations about a larger conspiracy.
• Kari Choudhary v. Mst. Sita Devi and others. (2002): 
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that there cannot be two FIRs against the same accused in respect of the same case. But when there are rival versions in respect of the same episode, they would normally take the shape of two different FIRs and investigation can be carried on under both of them by the same investigating agency.
• Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and others (2004): 
  • In this case the Supreme Court held that second complaint in regard to same incident filed as counter-complaint is not prohibited under CrPC, if in regard to a crime committed by real accused he takes the first opportunity to lodge a false complaint and the same is registered by the jurisdictional police then the aggrieved victim of such crime will be precluded from lodging a complaint giving his version of the incident in question, consequently he will be deprived of his legitimated right to bring the real accused to book.
• Nirmal Singh Kahlon (2009): 
  • In this case it was observed that the second FIR, would be maintainable not only because there were different versions but when new discovery is made on factual foundations.
• Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat and others (2010): 
  • In this case it was observed that in case of a subsequent FIR, the Court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the 'test of sameness' is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of same occurrence or in regard to the incident which are two or more parts of the same transaction. 
  •  In case where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents, the second FIR is permissible. 
  • It was also observed that an FIR pertaining to a counterclaim in respect to the same incident having a different version of events, is permissible.
• Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2013): 
  • In this case it was held that that second FIR in respect of same offence or incident forming part of same transaction as contained in first FIR, is not permissible but, where, the offence does not fall within the ambit of first FIR, the second FIR would be permissible. 
  • The test of sameness to be applied.
• Awadesh Kumar Jha alias Akhilesh Kumar Jha and another v. State of Bihar (2016): 
  • In this case it was held that substance of allegations in the second FIR are different from first FIR and related to different transaction, case arising out of second FIR survives. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court ruled that a minor can receive immovable property through a sale deed, states that such transfer does not constitute a contract as defined under the Indian Contract Act,1872. The Court clarified that while minors cannot be transferors, they can be transferees, allowing for the legal transfer of property ownership to minors. 

• Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar held in the matter of Neelam Gupta & Ors v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. 

What was the Background of Neelam Gupta & Ors v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. Case? 

• Rajendra Kumar Gupta (plaintiff) filed Civil Suit No. 195A/95 on 24th December 1986 against Ashok Kumar Gupta and Rakesh Kumar Gupta (original defendants) for recovery of possession of a property and damages. 
• The suit property is 7.60 acres of land comprised in Khasra No. 867/1 of Mowa village in Tehsil and District Raipur. 
• Rajendra Kumar Gupta claimed he purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 04th June 1968 from Late Sh. Sitaram Gupta, who was a common cousin of the plaintiff and defendants. 
• The plaintiff alleged he enjoyed peaceful possession of the property under Bhumiswami Rights until he was dispossessed by the defendants in July 1983. 
• The defendants contended that their father, Sh. Ramesh Chandra Gupta, and the plaintiff's father, Sh. Kailash Chandra Gupta, purchased the suit property in the name of their nephew Late Sh. Sitaram Gupta on 15th March 1963. 
• The defendants claimed their father had installed an electric pump, dug a well, and constructed three rooms on the property for dairy purposes. 
• The defendants admitted that upon the death of the plaintiff's father on 25th December 1967, the property was transferred to the plaintiff's name in 1968 and recorded in revenue records, but claimed they retained possession. 
• The defendants alleged that Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Kailash Chandra Gupta were members of a joint family with joint bangle businesses in Firozabad and Raipur. 
• The defendants claimed an oral partition took place on 31st March 1976 between their father and the plaintiff's family, dividing the properties and businesses. 
• The defendants raised pleas of adverse possession and limitation, claiming they had been in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years. 
• The case proceeded through multiple levels of courts, including the Trial Court, First Appellate Court, and High Court, with various findings and reversals at each level. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court held that there is no bar to transferring immovable property in favor of a minor by way of a sale deed. 
• The Court observed that a minor can become the transferee/owner through a sale deed, as the conditions stated under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 regarding persons competent to contract do not apply, since a sale cannot be termed as a contract. 
• According to Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882 a sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for consideration and is distinct from a contract. 
• The Court held that the conjoint reading of relevant provisions suggests that a minor can be a transferee, though not a transferor, of immovable property. 
• The Court clarified that once property is transferred to a minor, upon attaining majority, they would be competent to transfer said property to any other person. 
• The Court ruled that a transfer made by a person upon attaining majority cannot be challenged solely on the grounds that they were a minor when the property was initially transferred to them. 
• The Court observed that the starting point of limitation for adverse possession claims, under Article 65 of the Limitation Act 1963, commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse, not from when the plaintiff's right of ownership arises. 

What are Legal Provisions Referred? 

Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872: 

• This section defines who is competent to enter into a contract in India.  
• According to this law, a person is competent to contract if they meet three criteria: 
  • Age of Majority: The person must have reached the age of majority according to the law applicable to them. In India, this is typically 18 years old under the Indian Majority Act, 1875. 
  • Sound Mind: The person must be of sound mind, meaning they should be capable of understanding the contract and forming a rational judgment about its effect on their interests. 
  • Not Disqualified by Law: The person must not be disqualified from contracting by any law to which they are subject.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:

• This section defines "sale" and deals with how a sale of property can be made. 
• Definition of Sale: A sale is defined as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price that is paid, promised, or partly paid and partly promised. 
• Requirements for sale of immovable property: 
  • For tangible immovable property valued at 100 rupees or more, the sale must be made by a registered instrument. 
  • For tangible immovable property valued less than 100 rupees, the sale can be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. 
  • For intangible property or a reversion, a registered instrument is required regardless of value. 
• Delivery of Immovable property: This occurs when the seller places the buyer (or a person designated by the buyer) in possession of the property. 
• Contract for Sale: This is defined as an agreement that a sale will take place on terms agreed upon by the parties. However, a contract for sale does not, by itself, create any interest in or charge on the property.

Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963: 

• This article states the limitation period for filing a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest in it based on title.  
• Limitation Period: The time limit for filing such a suit is 12 years. 
• Commencement of Limitation Period: The 12-year period begins when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff.  
  • Adverse possession occurs when someone occupies property openly, continuously, and without the owner's permission for a specified period. 
• These legal provisions are crucial in Indian property and contract law, governing the competency to enter contracts, the process of property sales, and the time limits for bringing legal action related to property possession.

Source: Gujarat High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Chief Justice Mrs. Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) there can be no factual inquiry.             

• The Gujarat High Court held this in the case of Jakhariya Saleman Manek & Anr v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change & Ors.  

What was the Background of Jakhariya Saleman Manek & Anr v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change & Ors. Case? 

• A CRZ clearance dated 19th December 2016 was granted for development of 7 integrated facilities within the existing Kandla Port Trust limit at district Kutch. 
• A CRZ recommendation letter was issued by GCZMA for the integrated facilities which indicated several conditions which were to strictly adhere to the provisions of CRZ notification of 2011. 
• The Respondent no. 3 was directed to submit a fresh proposal for environmental clearance/CRZ clearance as per the recommendation of GCZMA.  
• On the submission of fresh application, the MoEF & CC issued the approved terms of reference in respect of the 7 integrated facilities. 
• This writ petition has been filed challenging the above clearances to two projects of Respondent no. 3 i.e. Deen Dayal Port Authority on the grounds that the projects of respondent no. 3 are to be carried out on lands containing Mangrove forests. 
• The crux of the challenge is that the projects of respondent no.3 are to be carried out on lands containing mangrove forests and the same falls within CRZ-1A category under the CRZ Notification of 2011, whereas CRZ clearance has been given under CRZ-1(B), CRZ-III and CRZ-IV categories. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that in case there is a violation of CRZ notification issued under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 (EPA) there would be penal consequences under Section 15 of the EPA Act. 
• The Court held that issues involved here require factual inquiry which falls out of the scope of Article 226 of the COI. 
• In this ace to examine the contention of the petitioners some more evidence would be required including recording of the oral evidence. 
• Thus, the Court concluded that the present case involves an enquiry which would not be permissible or possible under Article 226 of the COI. 
• On the contention that the writ petition lacks bonafide the Court again held that the inquiry is impermissible within the scope of Article 226 of COI. 
• Further, the Court held that the petitioners are open to approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT) for redressal of grievances as the primary issue raised is violation of CRZ Notification of 2011. 
• Hence, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioners are open to avail appropriate remedy available in law. 

What is Article 226 of the COI ?

• Article 226 is enshrined under Part VI of the Constitution which puts power in the hands of the High Court to issue the writs. 
• Article 226(1) of the COI states that every High Court shall have powers to issue orders or writs including habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari, to any person or any government for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other purpose. 
• Article 226(2) states that the High Court has the power to issue writs or orders to any person, government, or authority - 
  • Located within its jurisdiction or 
  • Outside its local jurisdiction if the circumstances of the cause of action arises either wholly or partly within its territorial jurisdiction. 
• Article 226(3) states that when an interim order is passed by a High Court by way of injunction, stay, or by other means against a party then that party may apply to the court for the vacation of such an order and such an application should be disposed of by the court within the period of two weeks. 
• Article 226(4) says that the power granted by this article to a high court should not diminish the authority granted to the Supreme Court by Clause (2) of Article 32. 
• This Article can be issued against any person or authority, including the government. 
• This is merely a constitutional right and not a fundamental right and cannot be suspended even during an emergency. 
• Article 226 is of mandatory nature in case of fundamental rights and discretionary nature when it is issued for “any other purpose”. 
• It enforces not only fundamental rights, but also other legal rights.

What is a Factual Inquiry?

About: 

• Inquiry as defined under Section 2 (g) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) means every inquiry other than trial conducted under this code by a Magistrate or Court.   
• Inquiry under Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is defined under Section 2 (k). The contents of both the provisions are the same.  
• Factual Inquiry pertains solely to facts in a particular case. 
• Factual Inquiry involves recording oral evidence as well.  

Relation between Factual Inquiry and Article 226 of the COI: 

• It is a well settled principle that in the case of writ petition under Article 226 of the COI there can be no factual inquiry. 
• In the case of Sanjay Kumar Jha v. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary & Ors. (2018) a Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice R. Banumati and Justice Indira Banerjee held that under Article 226 the High Court does not adjudicate upon affidavits, disputed questions of fact. 
• The Supreme Court laid down the following principles: 
  • In proceedings under Article 226 the High Court does not adjudicate upon affidavits, disputed questions of fact. 
  • The High Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over findings recorded by a competent administrative authority, nor reappreciate evidence itself to correct the error of fact. 
  • Even in cases where there is an apparent factual error that goes to the root of the decision the appropriate cause of action is to give the authority an opportunity concerned to rectify the error. 
  • It is only in rarest of rare cases where the factual error can be rectified by the Court in order to prevent delay and consequential denial and/or miscarriage of justice, rectify the error.