List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held that the Court should not permit withdrawal of prosecution if the prosecutor does not mention his opinion.             

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Dilip Singh v. State of U.P. and Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Dilip Singh v. State of U.P. and Another Case?

• In the present facts First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by opposite party no. 2 against Dilip Singh under Sections 384, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• After investigation, police filed charge sheet under Sections 384, 352, 504, 506 IPC. 
• During the trial's pendency, the State filed an application under Section 321 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) to withdraw prosecution, based on Government Order dated 6th May 2013. 
• The Public Prosecutor did not mention any reason or public interest for withdrawal from the application.  
• The accused (Dilip Singh) is a history sheeter with 32 cases against him. 
• The trial is at an advanced stage with Section 313 CrPC statement already recorded. 
• Both the trial court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate) and revisional court rejected the withdrawal application. 
• The present application under Section 482 CrPC seeks to quash: 
  • Order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. 
  • Order passed in criminal Revision. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The Court held that it has been observed by the Supreme Court in earlier decisions that an application by the prosecution for withdrawal must be made in good faith and in interest of justice and not thwart or stifle the process of law. 
• Further, it was observed that the legal position is that prosecution cannot be withdrawn merely because the government has issued a government order.   
  • The public prosecutor should also apply his mind by mentioning in his application filed under Section 321 CrPC that he is satisfied that the application has been made under good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice.  
• Therefore, on the application by public prosecutor to withdraw the criminal case on the basis of government order without mentioning any reason or his opinion, court should not permit to withdraw the prosecution as the same is not permissible in the eyes of law. 
• Thus, the Court in the present case did not find any illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the application.

What is Withdrawal of Prosecution?

• Section 321 of CrPC provides for withdrawal of Prosecution.  
• This provision can now be found under Section 360 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).  
• Under Section 360 of BNSS following points are laid down: 
  • A Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor can withdraw from prosecuting a case, but they need the Court's permission to do so. 
  • This withdrawal can be done any time before the final judgment, and it can be
    • For all charges against the accused 
    • For specific charges only 
  • The effect of withdrawal depends on timing:  
    • If withdrawn before charges are framed: The accused is discharged 
    • If withdrawn after charges are framed: The accused is acquitted 
  • Special permission from Central Government is needed if the case involves:  
    • Matters under Union government's power 
    • Cases investigated under Central laws 
    • Damage to Central Government property 
    • Crimes by Central Government employees during official duty 
  • Two important safeguards:  
    • In cases involving Central matters, the prosecutor must show the court written permission from Central Government 
    • The court must hear the victim's side before allowing any withdrawal

What are Landmark Cases on Withdrawal of Prosecution? 

• Abdul Wahab K v. State of Kerela and other (2018): 
  • The Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, has an important role under the statutory scheme and is expected to act as an independent person. 
  • He/she has to apply his/her own mind and consider the effect of withdrawal on the society in the event such permission is granted. 
• State of Kerela v. K Ajith and others (2021): 
  • The Court laid down before deciding whether to grant consent for withdrawal of prosecution the Court must be satisfied that: 
    • The function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. 
    • The application has been made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. 
    • The application does not suffer from such improprieties or illegalities as would cause manifest injustice if consent were to be given. 
    • The grant of consent subserves the administration of justice. 
    • Permission has not been sought with an ulterior purpose unconnected with the vindication of the law which the Public Prosecutor is duty-bound to maintain. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that even if one relief cannot be granted by the Civil Court by virtue of SARFAESI Act the suit will not be rejected if the Court can grant other reliefs.                       

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Central Bank of India v. Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Central Bank of India v. Smt. Prabha Jain Case?   

• The case originated from a property dispute where Smt. Prabha Jain (the plaintiff) filed a Civil Suit. 
• The Property ownership timeline was as follows: 
  • 1967: The suit land was purchased by plaintiff's father-in-law 
  • 2005: Father-in-law died, and the property was inherited equally (1/3rd each) by: 
    • Plaintiff's husband (Mahendra Kumar Jain) 
    • Husband's elder brother (Sumer Chand Jain) 
    • Mother – in -law 
• After plaintiff's husband's death, she inherited his 1/3rd share in the property. 
• The dispute arose because: 
  • Sumer Chand Jain (brother-in-law) divided the land into plots without any partition. 
  • He sold one plot to Parmeshwar Das Prajapati on 3rd July 2008. 
  • Prajapati then mortgaged the plot to Central Bank of India for a loan. 
• When the loan defaulted, the bank took possession under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and planned to auction the property.  
• The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking: 
  • Declaration that the sale deed to Prajapati was illegal. 
  • Declaration that the mortgage deed to the bank was illegal. 
  • Possession of the property. 
  • Damages and mesne profits. 
• Legal proceedings: 
  • The trial court initially rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). 
  • The High Court reversed this decision, ruling that civil courts have jurisdiction to hear the case 
  • The matter is now being appealed to the Supreme Court by the Bank  
• The central issue is whether civil courts have jurisdiction to hear such cases under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• The plaintiff in her suit had asked for three reliefs: 
  • The first relief is in relation to a sale deed executed by Sumer Chand Jain in favour of Parmeshwar Das Prajapati.  
  • The second relief is in relation to a mortgage deed executed by Pramod Jain in favour of the bank.  
  • The third relief is for being handed over the possession of the suit property. 
• The Court observed that the SARFAESI Act has not been enacted for providing a mechanism for adjudicating upon the validity of documents or to determine questions of title finally.  
• The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) does not have the jurisdiction to grant a declaration with respect to the mortgage deed or the sale deed as sought by the Plaintiff. 
• It was observed that the jurisdiction to declare a sale deed or a mortgage deed being illegal is vested with the civil court under Section 9 of the CPC. 
• The Court observed that although the third relief is barred by Section 17 (3) of the SARFAESI Act still the plaint must survive because there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. 
• The first and second reliefs as prayed are clearly not barred by Section 34 of SARFAESI Act. 
• Therefore, even if one relief survives the plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

What is Section 34 of SARFAESI Act? 

• As per Section 34 of SARFAESI Act the Civil Court will not have jurisdiction in certain cases. 
• Civil Courts cannot handle cases related to matters assigned to Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) or Appellate Tribunals under this Act. 
• Civil Courts or other authorities cannot grant injunctions regarding actions taken or to be taken under this Act or the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

What are Landmark Cases on Section 34 of SARFAESI Act? 

• Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2004): 
  • A full reading of Section 34 shows that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in respect of matters which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or an Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine in respect of any action taken “or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred under this Act”. 
  • That is to say, the prohibition covers even matters which can be taken cognizance of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal though no measure in that direction has so far been taken under sub-section (4) of Section 13. 
  • The bar of civil court thus applies to all such matters which may be taken cognizance of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, apart from those matters in which measures have already been taken under sub-section (4) of Section 13 
• State Bank of Patiala v. Mukesh Jain & Anr. (2017): 
  • Upon perusal of Section 34 of the Act, it is very clear that no civil court is having jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to determine the dispute 
  • Further, the civil court has no right to issue any injunction in pursuance of any action taken under the Act or under the provisions of the DRT Act. 

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh has held that for conferring the jurisdiction on Family court place of marriage is not relevant. 

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the matter of Anup Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh (2025).   

What was the Background of the Anup Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh Case? 

• The case concerns a matrimonial dispute between Anup Singh (husband/appellant) and Smt. Jyoti Chandrabhan Singh (wife/respondent). 
• The marriage between the parties was solemnized at Pratapgarh, following which a reception was hosted at Prayagraj. 
• The husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (HMA) before the Family Court, Prayagraj. 
• Upon the Family Court's refusal to entertain the petition, the husband filed a review application, which was also rejected. 
• The husband subsequently filed an appeal against the Family Court's order, along with a Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application for the delay in filing the appeal. 
• The husband contended that although the marriage was solemnized in Pratapgarh, the reception was hosted in Prayagraj and disputed the finding that the parties lastly resided in New Delhi. 
• The jurisdictional question arose under Section 19 of HMA which prescribes the territorial jurisdiction for filing matrimonial petitions. 
• The matter pertains primarily to the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court, Prayagraj, to entertain the divorce petition. 
• The trial Court concluded that necessary ingredients to vest jurisdiction in the Family Court, Allahabad (Prayagraj) were lacking. 
• Refused to entertain the petition on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Allahabad High Court made the following observations: 
  • Examined Section 19 of the HMA and noted that the place of marriage is a relevant consideration for jurisdiction under Clause (i). 
  • It was determined that hosting a reception party at Prayagraj after marriage was not relevant for conferring jurisdiction to the Family Court at Prayagraj. 
  • Confirmed that it remained undisputed that marriage was solemnized at Pratapgarh. 
  • Found no specific assertion in the plaint showing that parties lastly lived together as married couple at Prayagraj. 
  • Upheld the Trial Court's finding that parties lastly lived together in New Delhi, noting this finding was neither erroneous nor perverse. 
  • Found no illegality or infirmity in the Family Court's judgment refusing to entertain the petition on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 
• While dismissing the appeal, noted that the appellant could approach the competent court for necessary relief. 

What is Section 19 of HMA? 

• This Section contains provision in relation to the Courts in which petition shall be presented. It states that - 
  • Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the District Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction: — 
    • (i) the marriage was solemnized, or 
    • (ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or 
    • (iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or 
    • (iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition; 
    • (iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive. 
• Section 19 of Hindu Marriage Act is quite a liberal provision as it enables both the parties to have convenience for contesting the matrimonial petition. 
• The term resides used in clause (ii) of this section represents actual place of residence and not a legal or constructing residence. 
• In the case of Mahadevi v. N.N. Sirathia (1973), Allahabad High Court observed that Section 19 of HMA does not deal with the length of residence. Even a short residence may be sufficient to give the court jurisdiction to entertain petition. If the husband and wife had lived together in the same residence, then they must be deemed to have resided together. Thus, the factum of residence and not the purpose of residence is material.