List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra has held that merely grabbing the victim's breasts, breaking the string of her pajama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert before fleeing when interrupted was not sufficient to establish a case of attempt to rape. 

• The Allahabad High Court has held in the matter of Akash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others (2025). 

What was the Background of Akash and 2 Others v. State of U.P. And 2 Others Case?  

• Asha Devi filed an application under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)  before the Special Judge under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, enacted in 2012. 
• The complaint alleged that while returning from her sister-in-law's home with her 14-year-old daughter, she encountered three co-villagers: Pawan, Akash, and Ashok. 
• Pawan offered to give Asha's daughter a ride home on his motorcycle, and Asha permitted this based on his assurance. 
• According to the complaint, instead of taking the girl home, the accused stopped on a muddy road where they allegedly began grabbing the girl's breasts. Akash allegedly tried to drag her beneath a culvert and broke the string of her pajama. 
• Two witnesses, Satish and Bhurey, who were following a tractor, heard the girl's cries and arrived at the scene. The accused allegedly threatened them with a country-made pistol before fleeing. 
• When Asha went to Pawan's house to complain, Pawan's father Ashok allegedly abused and threatened her. 
• She claimed she attempted to file an FIR the next day, but no action was taken by the police. 
• On March 21, 2022, the court treated her application as a complaint case and proceeded accordingly. 
• After recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the court summoned Pawan and Akash under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (rape) read with Section 18 of POCSO Act (attempt to commit an offence), and summoned Ashok under Sections 504 and 506 IPC (intentional insult and criminal intimidation). 
• The accused persons filed a Criminal Revision challenging this summoning order, contending they were falsely implicated as retaliation for an earlier FIR filed by Akash's mother against family members of the complainant. 
• The revisionists claimed that Ranjana (Akash's mother) had filed an FIR against four persons including Sukhveer (who is allegedly related to the victim in the present case), alleging molestation and physical assault. 
• The defense argued this complaint was filed as a counter-blast to the earlier case, especially since a chargesheet had already been filed in Ranjana's case. 
• Based on the complainant's statements and witness testimony, the trial court found sufficient grounds to summon Pawan and Akash under Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of POCSO Act (effectively charging them with attempt to rape). 
• The trial court also found grounds to summon Ashok (Pawan's father) under Sections 504 and 506 IPC for allegedly abusing and threatening the complainant when she approached their residence. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court the present revision petition has been filed before the Allahabad High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Allahabad High Court observed that: 
  • The High Court carefully examined whether the allegations could constitute an attempt to rape (Section 376/511 of IPC or Section 376 IPC read with Section 18 of POCSO Act). 
  • The Court noted that the specific allegations against the accused were that they grabbed the victim's breasts, Akash tried to drag her beneath a culvert, and broke the string of her pajama before being interrupted by witnesses. 
  • The Court observed there was no allegation that the accused Akash himself got undressed after breaking the string of the victim's lower garment. 
  • It was also not stated by witnesses that the victim became naked or undressed due to the accused's actions. 
  • The High Court found no specific allegation that the accused tried to commit penetrative sexual assault against the victim. 
  • The Court emphasized that to establish a charge of attempt to rape, the prosecution must prove the act had gone beyond the stage of preparation, showing "a greater degree of determination." 
  • The High Court cited precedents including Rex v. James Lloyd (1836) and Express v. Shankar (1881), which established that conviction for attempt to rape requires evidence that the accused was determined "to gratify his passions at all events and in spite of all resistance." 
  • The Court concluded that merely grabbing the victim's breasts, breaking the string of her pajama, and attempting to drag her beneath a culvert before fleeing when interrupted was not sufficient to establish a case of attempt to rape. 
  • The High Court determined that the facts instead supported charges under Section 354(B) IPC (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe) read with Section 9/10 of POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault). 
  • The Court partially allowed the revision petition and modified the summoning order, directing the trial court to issue fresh summons to Pawan and Akash under the modified sections. 

What are the Offences Under POCSO Act?

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that before the complainant chooses to adopt the remedy under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), he must exhaust the remedies provided for under Section 154 (1) and (3).   

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr (2025). 

What was the Background of Ranjit Singh Bath & Anr v. Union Territory Chandigarh & Anr.(2025) Case?   

• The second respondent filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• Based on the complaint, the Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 14th June 2017, directing the concerned Police Station to register an FIR under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• The appellants challenged this order by filing a quashing petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 
• The High Court dismissed the quashing petition through an impugned order. 
• The points raised by the Appellant were as follows: 
  • The appellants’ counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2015), particularly paragraph 27 of the judgment. 
  • The appellants’ counsel also referred to Babu Venkatesh & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.(2022), which followed the Priyanka Srivastava decision. 
• The points raised by the Respondent were as follows: 
  • The second respondent's senior counsel argued that while there was no specific mention of compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC, the compliance was made in substance. 
  • It was stated in paragraph 14 of the complaint that a written complaint had been addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh, and was marked to the Economic Offences Wing for inquiry on 29th January 2014. 
  • The second respondent's counsel admitted that there was no explicit averment that Section 154(3) of the CrPC was invoked. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that the requirement under Section 154 (1) of CrPC is that the information regarding the commission of cognizable offence has to be furnished to the officer in charge of police station. 
• Further, Section 154 (3) only comes into picture when the officer in charge of the police station refuses or neglects to register the FIR under Section 154 (1). 
• The Court held that before the complainant chooses to adopt the remedy under Section 156 (3), he must exhaust the remedies provided for under Section 154 (1) and (3) of CrPC and he must make those averments in the complaint and produce the documents in support. 
• The Court held that in the present facts the Court has completely ignored the binding precedent in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015). 
• The Court quashed and set aside the steps taken on the basis of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate.

What is Section 156 (3) of CrPC? 

• Section 156 (3) of CrPC provides that the Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned. 
• This provision is contained in Section 175 (3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• The Comparison of the two is as follows: 

What are the Important Case Laws on this Aspect? 

• Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025): 
  • The Court observed that following safeguards have been introduced in Section 175 (3) of BNSS which were absent in Section 156 (3) of CrPC: 
    • Firstly, the requirement of making an application to the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge of a police station to lodge the FIR has been made mandatory, and the applicant making an application under Section 175(3) is required to furnish a copy of the application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), supported by an affidavit, while making the application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). 
    • Secondly, the Magistrate has been empowered to conduct such an enquiry as he deems necessary before making an order directing the registration of FIR.  
    • Thirdly, the Magistrate is required to consider the submissions of the officer in charge of the police station as regards the refusal to register an FIR before issuing any directions under Section 175(3).
• Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015): 
  • The Court held that prior to making an application to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. the applicant must necessarily make applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3). 
  • It was further observed by the Court that applications made under Section 156(3) of the CrPC must necessarily be supported by an affidavit sworn by the applicant. 
  • The reason given by the Court for introducing such a requirement was that applications under Section 156(3) of the CrPC were being made in a routine manner and in a number of cases only with a view to cause harassment to the accused by registration of FIR.