List of Current Affairs

Source: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sanjay Dhar held that, once the magistrate records the preliminary statement of the complainant and proceeds to direct an inquiry to ascertain the truth of the matter, it is not open to the magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. 

• The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh observed this in the matter of Renu Sharma & Anr v. Union Territory of J&K.  

What was the Background of Renu Sharma & Anr v. Union Territory of J&K Case? 

• The petitioners challenged FIR No. 37/2022 registered for offences under Section 461/31 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Police Station, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu, based on a complaint filed by Respondent No.2 before the Special Mobile Magistrate (Electricity), Jammu. 
• The complainant alleged that he was a tenant in Flat No.102, Block-D, Kamdhenu Homz, Toph Sherkhania, Jammu since September 2015, paying a monthly rent of Rs. 22,500/- to petitioner Renu Sharma. 
• The complainant claimed that while he was away in April 2022, on returning on March 9, 2022, he discovered that trespass, housebreaking, theft, and burglary had taken place, and the main entrance door lock had been changed. 
• After reviewing CCTV footage, it was alleged that the petitioners illegally entered the premises and changed the lock. 
• The complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC seeking registration of an FIR for offences under Sections 453, 454, 456, 457, 379, 380 read with 120-B of IPC. On March 19, 2022, the Trial Magistrate recorded the preliminary statement of the complainant on oath. Instead of directing an immediate FIR registration, the Magistrate ordered an enquiry by SSP Jammu, with a report to be submitted by March 24, 2022. 
• The enquiry was conducted by Dy.SP HQ Jammu, who submitted his report on March 28, 2022, concluding that: 
  • The landlord had not followed proper procedure to regain possession. 
  • The tenant had not regularly paid rent and other dues. 
  • The landlord changed the locks without tenant’s consent. 
• After receiving the enquiry report, the Trial Magistrate, on March 29, 2022, directed the SHO, Police Station Bakshi Nagar, Jammu to register an FIR and instructed SSP Jammu to appoint a Gazetted rank Investigating Officer. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court reiterated that once a Magistrate takes cognizance under Chapter XV CrPC, he cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage and direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC.  
• The Court held that the order dated 29.03.2022, passed by the trial Magistrate directing the registration of FIR No.37/2022, was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the FIR registered pursuant to this order was also quashed. 
• The Court ruled that once a Magistrate records the preliminary statement of a complainant under Section 200 CrPC, it amounts to taking cognizance of the case. After taking cognizance, the Magistrate cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage and direct the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. 
• The Court directed that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant should be treated as a private complaint under Chapter XV of the CrPC and the trial Magistrate must proceed accordingly. 
• The Court ordered the official respondents to produce the case diary regarding FIR No.113/2022 on the next date of hearing (22.04.2025) and directed that any interim relief granted earlier shall continue until then. 

What is Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 

About 

• This section empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to conduct an investigation into a cognizable offence. 
• Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) deals with the same provision.  
• If a person makes an application to the Magistrate and satisfies the Magistrate that an offence has been committed, the Magistrate can order the police to investigate the matter. 
• The Magistrate has the discretion to determine whether a case merits a police investigation based on the facts presented. 
• The initiation of criminal proceedings typically begins with the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) with the police. However, there may be situations where an individual, aggrieved by the commission of an offence, seeks the intervention of the judiciary to ensure a proper and unbiased investigation. 
• Section 156(3) comes into play when a Magistrate, who has the authority to take cognizance of an offense under section 190, is approached with a complaint or an application requesting the initiation of an investigation.  
• The provision empowers the Magistrate to direct the police or any other competent authority to conduct an investigation into the matter. 

Landmark Judgments 

• Johny Joseph v. State of Kerala (1986): 
  • The Kerala HC while considering the quashing of FIR registered through Section 156(3) of CrPC held that “In a case instituted on a police report, the court gets jurisdiction to try the offender, only when the final report is filed, and cognizance taken”. 
• HDFC Securities Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2017): 
  • The Supreme Court held that “An order under Section 156(3) of CrPC requiring investigation by Police cannot cause injury of irreparable nature. The stage of cognizance would arise only after the investigation report is filed before the Magistrate”. 
  • Cognizance here includes proceeding under Section 482 of CrPC. 

What is Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? 

About 

• Section 200 of the CrPC outlines the procedure for a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence. 
• Whereas the same provision is covered under Section 223 of BNSS. 
• The section begins with the requirement that any person who desires the Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence must present a written complaint or information. 
• This complaint should be made to a Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter. 
• The marginal note of Section 200 of the CrPC is “Examination of complainant”. 

Legal Framework 

• Under this section, a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present. 
• And the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing. 
• And it shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. 

Proviso of Section 200 of the CrPC 

• When the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses.  
• If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or 
• If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Section 192 of CrPC. 
• Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re- examine them. 

Purpose 

• This provision underscores the importance of the complainant's role in criminal proceedings. 
• The examination of the complainant is not a mere formality but serves the purpose of ensuring that there is a prima facie case proceeding with the trial. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra have held that legal representative under the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) includes dependents of the deceased, not just immediate heirs. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sadhana Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors.  (2025). 

What was the Background of Sadhana Tomar & Ors. v. Ashok Kushwaha & Ors. Case? 

• On 25^th September 2016, Dheeraj Singh Tomar (24 years old) was traveling in an auto-rickshaw (registration No. MP 30-R-0582) along with other passengers. 
• The driver of the auto-rickshaw was driving rashly and negligently when the vehicle overturned at Gohad Chauraha Road near Gautum Nagar, Bajrang Washing Centre at Gwalior. 
• As a result of this accident, Dheeraj Singh Tomar died on the spot, while other passengers suffered injuries. 
• The appellants (dependents of the deceased) filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation of Rs. 28,50,000/-. 
• The appellants submitted that the deceased was earning approximately Rs. 35,000/- per month from his wholesale fruit selling business, which he used to support his family's daily expenses. 
• The MACT observed that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (the driver and owner of the vehicle) were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation because the driver was operating the vehicle without a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 
• The MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 9,77,200/- with simple interest at 7% per annum to appellant Nos. 1 to 3, calculating based on a notional income of Rs. 4,500/- per month with future prospects at 40%. 
• The MACT made a deduction of 1/3rd from the calculated amount for personal expenses and did not consider Appellant Nos. 4 and 5 (the father and younger sister of the deceased) as dependents. 
• Aggrieved by the compensation amount, the claimant-appellants filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior, challenging the determination of monthly income and the deduction methodology. 
• The High Court affirmed the MACT's findings regarding the compensation amount but directed the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants and then recover it from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 
• Still dissatisfied with the outcome, the claimant-appellants approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the monthly income was incorrectly assessed, and the appropriate multiplier was not applied.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Supreme Court disagreed with the Tribunal and High Court's assessment of the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 4,500/-. 
• The Court noted that while the claimants could not conclusively prove the deceased's income, it was evident that the accident had taken away a potential earning member of the family. 
• Referring to the Minimum Wages Act Notification of 2016, the Court determined that the monthly income for an unskilled worker was fixed at Rs. 6,500/-, bringing the annual income to Rs. 78,000/-. 
• The Court determined that appellant Nos. 4 and 5 (father and younger sister), both not financially independent, would qualify as legal representatives for compensation purposes under the Motor Vehicles Act, as they were dependent on the deceased's income from his wholesale fruit business. 
• As a result, the Court adjusted the deduction for personal expenses from 1/3rd to 1/4^th, accounting for five dependent family members instead of three. 
• The Court maintained the High Court's direction for the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation and then recover it from the driver and owner who were jointly and severally liable due to the lack of valid driving licence. 
• Based on these observations, the Supreme Court recalculated the compensation to Rs. 17,52,500/- (increased from the MACT and High Court's Rs. 9,77,200/-), with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 

What are the Landmark Cases Referred to in this Case? 

• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 297] - Referenced by the High Court in their judgment to establish that the insurance company should pay the compensation and then recover it from the owner and driver. 
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680] - Referenced to establish that the appropriate multiplier for a 24-year-old person is 18. 
• Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto [(2023) 1 SCC 204] - Referenced to emphasize that the objective of granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to ensure just and fair compensation to the aggrieved party. 
• Gujarat SRTC v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234] - Referenced to establish that a "legal representative" is one who suffers due to the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be limited to a wife, husband, parent or child. 
• N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. [(2022) 14 SCC 712] - Referenced to support giving a wider interpretation to the term "legal representative" under Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) emphasizing that proving loss of dependency is sufficient to claim compensation. 

What is Section 166 of MV Act? 

• Section 166(1)(c) permits "all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased" to make an application for compensation where death has resulted from an accident. 
• The proviso to Section 166(1) mandates that when all legal representatives have not joined in filing the compensation application, those who have not joined must be impleaded as respondents. 
• The term "legal representative" should be interpreted broadly and not be confined to its narrow definition under succession laws. 
• A legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a spouse, husband, parent, or child. 
• The qualification to be considered a legal representative is primarily the establishment of "loss of dependency." 
• Any person who can demonstrate dependence on the deceased's income and consequent financial loss due to their death qualifies as a legal representative. 
• This interpretation serves the benevolent objective of the Motor Vehicles Act to provide monetary relief to victims or their families affected by motor accidents. 
• The legislative intent of Section 166 is to ensure that every person who suffers financially due to the death has a legal remedy for obtaining compensation. 
• The Motor Vehicles Act, being remedial and beneficial legislation, calls for a liberal interpretation of its provisions, including the term "legal representative."