List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr. has held that a second complaint is maintainable when the final report is found negative but only when the second complaint has some core difference.

What was the Background of Subrata Choudhury @ Santosh Choudhury & Ors. v. The State of Assam & Anr. Case?

• In the present case, the 2^nd respondent filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the same was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC).
• A subsequent First Information Report (FIR) was filed against the appellants under Section 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC).
• After investigation a final report was filed under Section 173 of CrPC before the CJM.
• The report produced was a negative report.
• Aggrieved by the report a written objection/Narazi petition was filed by the complainant for not conducting the investigation properly.
• The CJM accepted the final report and confirmed the negative report.
• A second complaint was filed by the complainant with the same set of allegations against the appellants and the others who were shown as accused in the first complaint, before the learned CJM alleging commission of offence under the very Sections viz., 406, 420 and 34 IPC.
• CJM directed for investigation and for deposition of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses.
• Aggrieved by the decision of the CJM the appellant(accused) preferred a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court Guwahati.
• The High Court set aside the order of the learned CJM and directed the appellants herein to file an appropriate application raising the question of maintainability of the second complaint.
• CJM considered the application filed by the appellants raising the question of maintainability of the second complaint and dismissed the second complaint holding it not maintainable in law.
• Aggrieved the second respondent complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition.
• The Sessions Judge allowed the said Criminal Revision Petition and set aside the order of the CJM and remanded the case for reconsideration of the matter afresh for the purpose of finding whether any case for taking cognizance of the alleged offences and issuance of process have been made out or not.
• Aggrieved by the said order the appellants preferred Criminal Revision which was dismissed by the High Court.
• Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court observed that:
  • Filing a second complaint after the first complaint was rejected is maintainable but only if the core issues in both complaints are different.
  • Exceptions and Clarifications:
    • A second complaint on the same facts might be allowed, but only in exceptional cases.
    • One such exception is when the first dismissal order had some legal or procedural error
    • Just because the first complaint wasn't dismissed under Section 203 of CrPC doesn't automatically give the right to file a second complaint.
  • Whether a Second Complaint is allowed depends on:
    • How the first complaint was dismissed.
    • The specific circumstances of the case.
    • Whether the first dismissal order was challenged.
    • Whether there are any new facts or circumstances.
  • To file a second complaint with the same allegations as the first one, and there was no infirmity with how the first complaint was dismissed, the second complaint won't be accepted.
• The Supreme Court held that the present complaint does not fall within the ambit of special circumstances and therefore filing of second appeal on the same grounds was not maintainable as the first complaint and there was no infirmity in the orders passed under the first complaint.
• Based on the above observations the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court.

What is a Protest Petition?

About:

• A protest petition is a representation made by the victim or an informant to the court during the police investigation or after its completion to object against the police’s closure report in a given case.
• It is not defined under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) but is a mechanism that evolved through judicial pronouncements over the years.

Section 189 of BNSS:

• Section 189 of BNSS provides for filing of a closure report by the police officer investigating the case if he is of the opinion that there does not exist sufficient evidence against the accused in the case in order for the magistrate to take cognizance in the case.
• Filing of a closure report virtually ends the trial however the complainant or an aggrieved person can move a protest petition against such closure report before the Court.

Filing of the Protest Petition:

• When any aggrieved person files a complaint before Magistrate under section 175(3) of the BNSS, the Magistrate after being satisfied with the complaint petition gives instruction to the police for investigation.
• After making investigation, the police officer submits his investigation report to the magistrate under 193(3) of the BNSS.
• The aggrieved or the complainant in the event of not satisfied with the police, files a protest petition begore the concerned Magistrate stating his/her dissatisfaction and pray for further investigation under court supervision.
• If the protest petition is accepted, then the magistrate takes cognizance of the matter and issues notice to the accused person.
• Discretion of the Magistrate:
  • The Magistrate is not bound to accept the final report submitted by the Police Officer.
  • The Magistrate can disagree with that repot and can take the cognizance simple based upon the documents that are submitted or annexed with the police report.

Case Laws:

• Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2019):
  • The Supreme Court had observed that courts must exercise their power under the CrPc to summon an accused, even though his name is not there in the charge sheet, sparingly. It should not be exercised because a judge is of the opinion that some other may also be guilty, but only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence manner.
• Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019):
  • The Supreme Court observed that not all protest petitions should be treated as a complaint petition. The court said a magistrate could not be compelled to take cognizance by treating the protest petition as a complaint, if he/she is convinced on the basis of the consideration of a final report and statements of witnesses recorded by the police that no prima facie case is made out.
• Samta Naidu & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2020):
  • The Supreme Court held that a second complaint filed on same facts as the first one shall not be maintainable.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Chief Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice PS Narsimha, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Manoj Misra laid down the principles when a judgment can be declared as per incuriam.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Rambha Devi & Ors.

What was the Background of M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Rambha Devi & Ors. Case?

• The legal journey of the present case is as follows:

• The following issues came for consideration before the Court:

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court made the following observations:
  • For the purposes of licensing the Light Motor Vehicles (LMV) and ‘Transport Vehicle’ are not separate classes. Thus, a driver holding a license for LMV class for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg is permitted to operate a ‘Transport Vehicle’ without needing additional authorization under Section 10 (2) (e) of the MV Act.
  • The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘Transport Vehicle,’ does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.
  • The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving ‘transport vehicles’ would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger vehicle’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy passenger vehicle’.
  • The decision in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.

What is Judgment Per Incuriam?

• About:
• The term per incuriam is a Latin term which means ‘by inadvertence’ or ‘lack of care’.
• The English Courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis.
• In the case of Morelle Ld v. Wakeling (1955), the Court held that as a general rule the following decisions should be held to have been given per incuriam:
  • Decisions given in ignorance of some inconsistent statutory provisions.
  • Or some authority binding on the Court concerned.
• The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd v. State of Bihar (1955) adopted the per incuriam principle.
  • The Court held in this case that while Article 141 states that the decisions of the Supreme Court are “binding on all Courts within the territory of India”.
  • The above, however, does not extend to the Supreme Court which remains free to re-consider it’s judgments in appropriate cases.

Principles to be Followed for Judgment Per Incuriam:

• The following principles are to be followed:
  • A decision is per incuriam only when the overlooked statutory provision or legal precedent is central to the legal issue in question.
    • It must be inconsistent provision and a glaring case of obtrusive omission.
    • This doctrine applies to only ratio decidendi and does not apply to obiter dicta.
  • If a court doubts the correctness of a precedent, the appropriate step is to either follow the decision or refer it to a larger bench for reconsideration.
  • For applying this doctrine, it has to be shown that some part of the decision is based on a reasoning which was demonstrably wrong.
    • In exceptional instances, where by obvious inadvertence or oversight, a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, the principle of per incuriam may apply.

Landmark Judgments:

• Mamleshwar Prasad v. Kanhaiya Lal (1975):
  • In exceptional instances, whereby obvious inadvertence or oversight a judgment fails to notice a plain statutory provision or obligatory authority running counter to the reasoning and result reached, it may not have the sway of binding precedents.
  • It should be a glaring case, an obtrusive omission.
• A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988):
  • “Per incuriam” are those decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority binding on the court concerned, so that in such cases some part of the decision or some step in the reasoning on which it is based, is found, on that account to be demonstrably wrong.
• MCD v. Gurnam Kaur (1989):
  • A decision should be treated as given per incuriam when it is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of a statute.