List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

The Supreme Court allowed a compromise in a non-compoundable offence under Section 326 IPC, which deals with grievous hurt by dangerous weapons. Instead of the  non-compoundable, the Court invoked its inherent powers, citing exceptional circumstances like a voluntary settlement and the complainant's consent.  

• Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale  held in the matter of H. N. Pandakumar v. The State of Karnataka 

What was the Background of H. N. Pandakumar v. The State of Karnataka? 

• H.N. Pandakumar (accused) was involved in a criminal case stemming from FIR filed at K.R. Pete Rural Police Station, Mandya. 
• The original complaint was filed by Puttaraju, alleging that five accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted him and his family members, causing grievous injuries. 
• Based on the investigation, charges were framed against all accused under multiple sections including 143, 341, 504, 323, 324, and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. 
• The Trial Court, through its judgment dated 24th January 2012 in Sessions Court, convicted Accused Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC.  
• They were sentenced to:  
  • Two years of rigorous imprisonment 
  • Fine of Rs. 2,000/- each 
  • The remaining accused were acquitted 
• Pandakumar appealed to the Karnataka High Court’s judgment dated 01th September,2023:  
  • Reduced his sentence to one year 
  • Enhanced the fine to Rs. 2,00,000/- 
  • Acquitted Accused No. 4 
• After his Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19th January 2024. 
• Pandakumar filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to compound the offence based on:  
  • A compromise reached between the parties 
  • Agreement to pay Rs. 5,80,000/- as compensation 
  • Resolution of all disputes including property matters 
  • The fact that both parties are distantly related and live in close proximity 
• The complainant filed an Interlocutory Application supporting the compromise and seeking closure of the matter. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court acknowledged that while Section 326 IPC (punishment for grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) is non-compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Court possesses inherent powers to give effect to compromise in exceptional circumstances. 
• The Court noted several significant factors that constituted exceptional circumstances in this case:  
  • The existence of an amicable settlement between parties 
  • The complainant's unequivocal consent documented through the Interlocutory Application 
  • The parties' residential proximity (separated only by a road) 
  • The distant familial relationship between the parties 
• The potential impact of continued hostility on the social fabric of the neighborhood 
• The comprehensive nature of the compromise covering both criminal and property disputes 
• The resolution of long-standing right of way issues 
• The Court recognized that the applicant/petitioner's commitment to paying the agreed compensation (Rs. 5,80,000/-) demonstrated a genuine effort to resolve the discord. 
• The Court states that the complainant's support for the compromise through a formal Interlocutory Application provides the voluntary nature of the settlement. 
• Based on these exceptional circumstances, the Court determined it appropriate to:  
  • Allow the Miscellaneous Application 
  • Recall the previous order dated 19th January 2024 dismissing the SLP 
  • Grant leave 
  • Confirm the conviction while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone 
• The Court disposed of the Interlocutory Application for impleadment in terms of this order, along with any other pending applications. 

What is Section 326 of IPC? 

• Section 326 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt using dangerous weapons or means, including any instrument for shooting/stabbing/cutting, fire, heated substances, poison, corrosive substances, explosive substances, deleterious substances, or by means of any animal. 
• The punishment under Section 326 IPC can extend to imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to 10 years, along with a fine, except in cases covered under Section 335 IPC (grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation). 
• The essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 326 IPC are:  
  • Voluntary causing of grievous hurt 
  • Use of any dangerous weapon or means as specified in the section 
  • Intent or knowledge of likelihood to cause grievous hurt by such means 

What are Compoundable and Non-Compoundable Offence? 

• Compoundable Offences are those where the victim and the accused can mutually settle their dispute outside the court, with the court's permission, leading to the withdrawal of the criminal case - examples include simple hurt (Section 323 IPC), criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), and defamation (Section 500 IPC). 
• Non-compoundable Offences are those where compromise between parties is not legally permitted as these are considered serious crimes against society at large - examples include murder (Section 302 IPC), grievous hurt (Section 326 IPC), rape (Section 376 IPC), and kidnapping (Section 363 IPC). 
• Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 359 of BNSS) states lists which offences are compoundable and specifies whether they can be compounded with court permission or without court permission. 
• The Supreme Court has held that while non-compoundable offences cannot ordinarily be compromised, the Court may use its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC to allow compromise in exceptional circumstances, considering factors like the nature of the offence, background of the case, and extent of compromise between parties. 

What are the Differences Between Compoundable and Non-Compoundable Offence?

What are the Compoundable Offences under Section 359 of BNSS? 

Offences Compoundable Without Court Permission

Offences Compoundable with Court Permission 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Alisha Berry V. Neelam Berry has held that domestic violence act cases have no penal consequence except for breach of protection order. 

What was the Background of the Alisha Berry V. Neelam Berry Case? 

• This matter involves a domestic dispute between Alisha Berry (daughter-in-law) and Neelam Berry (mother-in-law). 
• Neelam Berry (respondent) had filed a case against Alisha Berry under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV) in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.  
• Alisha Berry (petitioner) has a specially abled minor son who suffers from hearing impairment. 
• The petitioner is currently unemployed and financially dependent on her father for survival. 
• There are concurrent divorce proceedings between Alisha Berry and her husband, which were previously transferred from Family Court, West, Tis Hazari, New Delhi to Family Court, Ludhiana District Court, Punjab through Transfer Petition.  
• The Trial Court had issued bailable warrants against Alisha Berry (petitioner) on 6th February 2024. 
• The current petition was filed by Alisha Berry seeking transfer of the domestic violence case from Delhi to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, Punjab. 
• Despite being served notice, the respondent (Neelam Berry) did not appear or have representation before the Supreme Court in this transfer petition. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that: 
  • The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Trial Court's decision to issue bailable warrants, stating there was "no justification whatsoever" for issuing such warrants in a Domestic Violence Act case. 
  • The Supreme Court emphasized that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are quasi-criminal in nature and do not carry penal consequences except in cases where there is a violation or breach of a protection order. 
  • The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the learned Magistrate was "absolutely unjustified" in directing the issuance of bailable warrants against the petitioner. 
• The Supreme Court considered several factors in making its decision:  
  • The submissions were made by the petitioner's counsel. 
  • The available material on record. 
  • The fact that related divorce proceedings had already been transferred to Ludhiana. 

What is a Protection Order? 

• Protection order is defined under Section 2 (o) of the DV Act which states that: 
• Protection order means an order made in terms of Section 18. 
• Section 18 of the DV Act States the Power of Magistrate to prohibit the respondent from committing certain acts (after providing opportunity of being heard) by giving Protection Orders as: 
  • Committing any act of domestic violence. 
  • Aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence. 
  • Entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or, if the person aggrieved is a child, its school or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person. 
  • Attempting to communicate in any form, whatsoever, with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact. 
  • Alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties, jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate. 
  • Causing violence to the dependents, other relatives or any person who gives the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence. 
  • Committing any other act as specified in the protection order. 
• As per Section 21 of the DV Act the Magistrate may, at any stage of hearing of the application for protection order, grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or the person making an application on her behalf. 
• Sub section (1) of Section 25 of DV Act states that a protection order made under section 18 shall be in force till the aggrieved person applies for discharge. 

What is Breach of Protection Order? 

• Section 31 of the DV Act states that a breach of protection order, or of an interim protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence under this Act. 
  • Shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both.  
• The offence under sub-section (1) of Section 31 shall as far as practicable be tried by the Magistrate who had passed the order, the breach of which has been alleged to have been caused by the accused.  
• While framing charges under sub-section (1), the Magistrates may also frame charges under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or any other provision of that Code or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as the case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence under those provisions. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice BV Nagrathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh held that transfer of property of value greater than Rs. 100 should be by way of a registered sale deed.                    

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Sanjay Sharma v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & Ors (2024).

What was the Background of Sanjay Sharma v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd & Ors.  Case?  

• The dispute relates to a property situated in Old Rajinder Nagar, Delhi which was owned by Champa Bhen Kundia. 
• There were several transactions of the property by way of unregistered sales. These included: 
  • Firstly, to her son Chandu Bhai (2000) 
  • Then to Satnam Singh and Surinder Wadhwa (2001) 
  • Finally to Raj Kumar Vij (respondent No. 2) through an Agreement to Sell (2001) 
• This property was mortgaged by Champa Bhen Kundia to get a loan from Associated India Financial Service Pvt Ltd. 
• The loan was eventually transferred to Kotak Mahindra Bank and the notice was served under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) due to non-payment of loan in 2006. 
• In pursuance to the legal proceedings the bank took the possession of the premises through a Court Receiver.  
• Respondent no 2 and others filed a case in the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). 
• DRT ordered them to deposit ₹2,00,000 to retain possession. While the order was complied by others Respondent 2 did not make the payment. 
• Thereafter auction of the premises was conducted and the appellant won the auction with a bid of Rs. 7,50,000. 
• Thereafter, sale certificate was issued to the appellant. 
• Challenge to the Auction: 
  • The Respondent No. 2 challenged the auction in the Appellate Tribunal. 
  • The DRT set aside the auction and allowed Respondent No. 2 to redeem the property with 9% interest 
  • The auction winner (appellant) challenged DRT's order in Appellate Tribunal 
  • The Appellate Tribunal sided with the appellant and restored the auction sale. 
  • They noted that Respondent No. 2's ownership claims were disputed 
  • Thereafter a writ petition was filed in the Delhi High Court wherein the Appellate Tribunal’s decision was reversed. 
  • Thus, the order of DRT setting aside the auction was restored. 
• The Delhi High Court gave the following order: 
  • Return of Rs. 7,50,000 to the auction winner with interest 
  • The Court allowed Respondent 2 to redeem the mortgage. 
  • Further, interest of 9% was set as the rate of interest for repayment. 
• The Appellant who is the auction winner is aggrieved by the above order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court observed that although learned counsel for respondent No.2 emphasized the fact that respondent No.2 is presently in possession of the scheduled premises on the strength of the registered General Power of Attorney dated 16.04.2001 as well as the agreement to sell of the same date, the fact remains that the agreement to sell executed by Smt. Champa Bhen Kundia is not by a registered document. 
• It was further observed that in the absence of there being any registration of the above mentioned agreement, the appellant could not have detected, whether there was any kind of prior interest created in favour of respondent No.2.  
• In fact, for the very same reason, respondent No.1 also would not have been in the knowledge of the said fact even if due diligence exercise had been carried out by the Bank as stated above as the agreement to sell was not a registered instrument. 
• Therefore, all the documents relied upon by respondent No.2 to claim ownership of the basement of the secured asset are unregistered documents and fail to meet the requirements of a valid sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 
• Respondent No.2 thus did not have any title to claim the ownership of the premises as the agreement on which he relies is an unregistered sale deed. 
• The auction sale was done in due compliance with the statutory requirements and constituted a valid sale. 
• The Court held that ample opportunities were given to the respondent to avail the right of redemption but the same were not availed by the respondent. 
• Hence, the Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of  the Appellate Tribunal  
• The Court ordered that the premises should be handed over to the Appellant i.e. the auction purchaser. 

What is Sale and How is it Made? 

• Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA) 
  • Section 54 of the TPA, defines a “sale” as the transfer of ownership in exchange for a price that is either paid, promised, or part-paid and part-promised. 
  • This provision further describes the manner in which a sale is effected. It stipulates that, in the case of tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more, the transfer can be made only through a registered instrument. 
  • The use of the term “only” signifies that, for tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more, a sale becomes lawful only when it is executed through a registered instrument. 
  • Where the sale deed requires registration, ownership does not pass until the deed is registered, even if possession is transferred, and consideration is paid without such registration. 
  • The registration of the sale deed for an immovable property is essential to complete and validate the transfer. 
  • Until registration is effected, ownership is not transferred. 
• Section 17 of Registration Act, 2008 
  • Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides for documents that are compulsorily registrable.   
  • It provides that conveyance by way of sale of a property whose value exceeds Rs 100 shall be by way of a registered sale deed. 

What are the Case Laws on Sale by Registered Sale Deed? 

• Babasheb Dhondiba Kute v. Radhu Vithoba Barde (2019) 
  • The Court held that the conveyance by way of sale would take place only at the time of registration of a sale deed in accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 2008. 
  • Till then there is no conveyance in the eyes of law 
• Suraj Lamps and Industries v. State of Haryana (2012) 
  • The Court in this case held that immovable property can be transferred only by way of a registered deed of conveyance. 
  • The Court also in this case deplored the practice of transferring the title to the property by way of ‘SA/GPA/WILL’ transfers. 
  • The Court further held that as per Section 54 of TPA sale of an immovable property can only happen by way of a registered instrument and an agreement to sell does not create any right title or interest in the subject matter.