List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BV Nagrathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh held that allegations that are vague or omnibus deserve to be quashed.                     

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another. 

What was the Background of Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others v. State of Telangana & Another. Case?  

• The marriage of Appellant No.1 (husband) and Respondent No.2 (wife) took place  at Chennakesava Swamy Temple, Andhra Pradesh. 
• Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, and Appellant Nos.4 to 6 are the sisters-in-law of Respondent No.2. 
• Respondent No.2 filed First Information Report (FIR) No.82 of 2022 with Neredmet Police Station, alleging offenses under: 
  • Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)  
  • Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DPA) 
• Accused include Appellant Nos.1 to 6 and Accused No.7 (Respondent No.2's brother-in-law). 
• It was alleged in the FIR that: 
  • Dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs, 10 tolas of gold, and other items were given by Respondent No.2's father, with Rs. 5 lakhs spent on the marriage. 
  • Respondent No.2 alleged harassment for additional dowry, abuse, and an illegal affair of Appellant No.1. 
  • Appellant Nos.2 to 6 allegedly instigated Appellant No.1 to demand more dowry. 
• The Appellants and Accused no 7 filed a criminal petition seeking to quash the FIR. 
• The High Court refused to quash the FIR but directed the Investigation Officer to: 
  • Follow the Arnesh Kumar guidelines. 
  • Avoid arresting the appellants until the chargesheet is filed. 
• The case against Appellant Nos.1 to 6 is pending trial in the Court of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri. 
• The appellants filed the current appeal challenging the refusal to quash the criminal proceedings.  

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The issue before the Court in this case was whether in the present facts the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 498A and Section 3 and 4 of DPA.  
• The Court held that a bare perusal of FIR shows that the allegations made are vague and omnibus and the FIR does not provide any specific details or described an instance of harassment. 
• The Court held that in the given facts in view of timing and context of the FIR it can be said that the Respondent no 2 left the matrimonial home after quarrelling with the appellant. 
• The Court further held that the Appellant no 2 to 6 should not have been dragged in the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. 
• With regard to implication of family members the Court held the following: 
  • A mere reference to the names of the family members without specific allegations indicating their involvement should be nipped in the bud. 
  • It is a well recognized fact that there is a tendency to implicate all members of the family. 
  • Such generalized accusations unsupported by concrete evidence cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution.  
  • Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members

What is the law Relating to Cruelty Towards Women under Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)? 

• Cruelty is defined under Section 86 of BNS as: 
  • 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.
• Section 85 of BNS provides that whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

What are the Landmark Cases on Misuse of Laws by Women? 

• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 
  • The Court laid down the following guidelines for arrest in brief: 
    • Arrest Guidelines for Police: Police must not automatically arrest anyone accused under Section 498-A IPC. Arrest should only happen if necessary, as per guidelines in Section 41 Cr.PC, and after evaluating the situation. 
    • Checklist and Reporting: Police must complete a checklist justifying the arrest and submit it along with reasons and evidence to the Magistrate when presenting the accused for detention. 
    • Role of Magistrates: Magistrates must review the police report, ensure the arrest is justified, and record their satisfaction before authorizing detention. Unjustified detention decisions may lead to disciplinary action. 
    • Accountability for Non-Compliance: Non-compliance with these guidelines by police or Magistrates may result in departmental actions or contempt of court proceedings initiated by the respective High Court. 
• GV Rao v. LHV Prasad (2000) 
  • Recently, there has been a rise in conflicts between married couples, often leading to serious issues. 
  • Marriage is meant to help couples build a peaceful and stable life together, but small disagreements can escalate into major problems. 
  • These disputes sometimes involve family elders, who could have mediated but instead become accused in legal cases, worsening the situation. 
  • It's better for couples to resolve their issues through mutual understanding rather than lengthy and stressful court battles that waste precious years of their lives. 
• Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 
  • The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. 
  • The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. 
  • The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection
• Rajesh Sharma & Othrs v. State of UP & Anr (2017) 
  • The Court discussed in this case whether any directions are called for to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of IPC. 
  • The Court laid down the following directions in this case: 
    • Family Welfare Committees: District Legal Services Authorities will form Family Welfare Committees to review complaints under Section 498A IPC, with periodic reviews by the District and Sessions Judge. 
    • Designated Investigating Officers: Complaints will only be handled by specially trained officers, who must complete their training within four months. 
    • Case Handling and Bail: Settlements can lead to case closures by senior judicial officers. Bail decisions should consider fairness, without denying bail solely for dowry recovery, and take individual roles and justice into account. 
    • Special Provisions: Passports should not be routinely impounded for NRIs. Trials should allow video appearances for family members when feasible, except in cases of physical harm or death.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Leela Agrawal v. Sarkar & Anr.  has held that mere possession by mortgagor does not constitute a “simple mortgage” when the original mortgage was “Mortgage by Conditional Sale”. 

What was the Background of the Leela Agrawal v. Sarkar & Anr. Case?

• The case revolves around a land mortgage transaction between two parties: 
• The plaintiff (a landowner) mortgaged a 2-acre agricultural plot to the defendant due to financial needs. 
• The initial mortgage amount was ₹75,000, with an agreement that the plaintiff could redeem the land within three years by repaying a total of ₹1,20,000 (which included principal, interest, and expenses). 
• The mortgage deed contained a critical clause: if the plaintiff failed to repay the amount within three years, the mortgage would automatically convert into an absolute sale in favor of the defendant. 
• In 1993, when the plaintiff attempted to repay the mortgage amount of ₹1,20,000, the defendant refused to accept the payment.  
• The defendant argued that according to the mortgage deed's terms, the land had already become her absolute property due to the plaintiff's failure to repay within the stipulated time frame. 
• Dissatisfied with the defendant's refusal, the plaintiff filed a civil suit in 2001 seeking: 
  • Redemption of the mortgage 
  • A declaration that the defendant's claim of ownership was invalid 
• The case hinged on interpreting the nature of the mortgage - Whether it was a simple mortgage or a mortgage by conditional sale, and the validity of the conversion clause. 
• The Trial Court held that the condition converting the mortgage into a sale was a "clog on the equity of redemption." 
• The case was then appealed before the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the defendant's appeal and emphasized that the plaintiff remained in possession of the land, which suggested it was a simple mortgage and agreed that the conversion clause was a clog on the equity of redemption 
• Aggrieved by the decision, the present appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Found that the mortgage deed satisfied all ingredients of a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) 
  • Observed that the permissive possession by the plaintiff did not negate the nature of the transaction 
  • Criticized the lower courts for:  
    • Placing undue emphasis on possession 
    • Overlooking the explicit terms of the mortgage deed 
    • Disregarding the clear intention of the parties 
  • Noted that the plaintiff failed to:  
    • Personally testify in court 
    • Provide credible evidence of attempted repayment 
    • Establish the applicability of Section 165 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 
  • Ultimately allowed the appeals and:  
    • Set aside the judgments of both the Trial Court and High Court 
    • Dismissed the plaintiff's suit 
    • Directed the Trial Court to refund the deposited amount with accrued interest 
• The Supreme Court essentially overturned the previous courts' interpretations, finding in favor of the defendant's understanding of the mortgage deed. 

What is Mortgage? 

• Mortgage is defined by Section 58 (a) of TPA as a transfer of an interest in specific immoveable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary (monetary) liability. 
• The transferor is called a mortgagor, the transferee a mortgagee; the principal money and interest of which payment is secured for the time being are called the mortgage-money, and the instrument (if any) by which the transfer is affected is called a mortgage-deed. 

What is the Difference Between Simple Mortgage and Mortgage by Conditional Sale?