List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that setting criminal law in motion by suppressing material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of process of law.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. (2025) 

What was the Background of Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. (2025) Case?   

• The case involves a dispute between an appellant and a Credit Co-Operative Society regarding two cheques issued for loan repayments. 
• The first loan was for Rs. 3,50,000/- obtained on 3rd July 2006, for which two security cheques were issued. 
• The first cheque was deposited and led to a criminal case in 2007, which was subsequently withdrawn after the appellant paid the cheque amount on 23rd September 2016. 
• A second loan of Rs. 11,97,000/- was allegedly granted to the appellant on 25th July 2008. 
• The respondent issued a legal notice dated 11th November 2016 regarding the dishonoured cheque. 
• The appellant, through her advocate, disputed the claim and requested loan documents to prepare a response. 
• The respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 15th December 2016. 
• The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) issued process on 2nd March 2017. 
• The Appellant filed a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the process, which was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on 18th December 2023. 
• The High Court found no issues with the JMFC's order and held that the appellant's contentions could be addressed during the trial. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court laid down that if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, then the learned Magistrate has to issue a process in terms of sub-Section (1) of Section 204 of the CrPC. 
  • The corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is Section 227. 
• The Court observed that in the present facts there was suppression of material facts by the party. 
• The material documents in the form of two letters addressed by the appellant were suppressed in the complaint and the statement on oath under Section 200. 
• In the statement on oath, the respondent-complainant vaguely referred to a ‘false notice reply’, but a copy of the reply was not produced by the respondent along with the complaint. 
• The Court held that setting the criminal law in motion by suppressing the material facts and documents is nothing but an abuse of process of law.  
• The Supreme Court hence quashed and set aside the complaint.

What is Section 227 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Section 227 of BNSS is the same as Section 204 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
• Section 227 (1) of BNSS provides: 
  • If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be: 
    • a summons-case, he shall issue summons to the accused for his attendance; or 
    • a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction: 
  • The new proviso added in BNSS states that the summons or warrants may also be issued through electronic means. 
• Section 227 (2) of BNSS provides that no summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. 
• Section 227 (3) of BNSS provides that in a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint. 
• Section 227 (4) of BNSS provides that when by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. 
• Section 227 (5) of BNSS provides that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 90.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has held that that there is no absolute rule that the High Court cannot interfere in a petition if the investigation is at a primary stage under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)]. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Kulandaisamy & Anr. V. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Kulandaisamy & Anr. V. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police & Anr. Case?   

• The case involves two appellants, Kulandaisamy and another individual, who are challenging a legal matter that originated with a First Information Report (FIR).  
• An FIR was filed against the appellants, which initiated a criminal investigation. 
• The appellants filed a petition to quash this FIR in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. 
• The investigation by law enforcement was still in its preliminary stages at the time of the legal proceedings. 
• The appellants seem to believe that the matter underlying the FIR is more of a civil dispute rather than a criminal issue. 
• The High Court originally dismissed the appellants' petition to quash the FIR, suggesting there was some prima facie material that could warrant an investigation. 
• Unsatisfied with the High Court's decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, filing a Special Leave Petition to challenge the High Court's order. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 
  • Preliminary Investigation Stage: 
    • The investigation was still at a preliminary stage, as shown in the respondent-State's counter affidavit. 
    • The Court emphasized that there is no absolute rule preventing judicial interference just because an investigation is in its early stages. 
  • High Court's Original Order Criticism: 
    • The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach to dismissing the petition unusual. 
    • The Court noted that the High Court did not consider the appellants' plea to quash the First Information Report (FIR) on its merits. 
  • Specific Criticisms of High Court's Order: 
    • The Supreme Court was particularly critical of the High Court's order, which they considered an unheard-of approach in dealing with a petition under Section 482 of CrPC. 
    • The Court felt the High Court had not properly examined the appellants' arguments. 
  • Remedial Action: 
    • The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's original order dated 1st April 2024. 
    • They restored the original Criminal Original Petition (No.7963 of 2024) to the Madras High Court's file. 
    • The Court directed the restored petition to be listed on 24th March 2025, before the roster Bench. 
  • Procedural Directions: 
    • The parties present in the Supreme Court were ordered to appear before the High Court on the specified date. 
    • The Supreme Court left all questions open for the High Court to decide. 
    • The overall thrust of the Supreme Court's observations was that the High Court should conduct a more thorough and substantive review of the petition to quash the FIR. 

What is Section 528 of BNSS?   

About:  

• This section was earlier covered under Section 482 of CrPC.   
• Section 528 of BNSS deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court.   
• It states that nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.   
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers.   

Purpose:   

• Section 528 of BNSS lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.   
• It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised:   
  • to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.   
  • to prevent abuse of the process of any court.   
  • to secure the ends of justice. 

What are the Landmark Judgements Based on Powers of High Court to Quash the Proceedings?  

• Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State [NCT of Delhi] (2018):  
  • In this case the Court held that the High Court has the power to interfere in the proceedings and quash the FIR against the accused even after filing the chargesheet.  
• Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala and Other (2023): 
  • The Kerela High Court in the present case highlighted that courts can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be vexatious, frivolous, or motivated by an ulterior motive, even if the FIR contains false allegations of an offense. The court observed that complainants with extraneous motives can craft FIRs to include necessary ingredients.  
• Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr (2024):  
  • The Delhi High Court recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the CrPC and BNSS.  
• Mama Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024):  
  • In this case it was held that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not based on the FIR, charge sheet and other document.